That's so hyperbolic it's into conspiracy theory territory.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How Apple is Helping Apps Comply With Australia's Social Media Ban for Kids
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you can't think of anyone who doesn't deserve a voice then you perhaps have too much rose in your glasses.
How the topic of a social media ban for kinds under 16 twisted into posts of them being able to drink for religious reasons or drive a car on private property, is beyond me. You can do a lot of things on your private property, but there are limits, and just because it's your property doesn't mean the law stops at the front gate.
TV has a lot of regulation on the broadcasting end, not on the watching end.
There also is no pressure to "use" social media more, or at all. It's up to parents to determine the way their children interact with the digital world. Which is why I am against the government micro-parenting.
In my opinion this is a gross generalization. And to repeat it's up to the parents to decide how, what, when and where their kids can use their digital assets.
No doubt this may apply to some people. But an analogy is people get arrested for DUI, so should we just go back to prohibition. Or raise the drinking age to 50? But it's clear there are many passionate points of view that will never see the way another with an opposite point of view might be saying.
In an attempt to defend their point of view, askew analogies are made that form their own sub-discussion.
Pretty simple really - yes, don’t be an utter failure of a parent.
If parents claim they’re "too busy" to have conversations with their children about social media, online safety, device usage, or managing screen time, that’s not a societal problem. That’s a parenting problem. These responsibilities have always fallen on the parent.
Calling these policies "popular" is generous. They’re not popular, they’re infamous. The government is stepping far beyond its role and inserting itself into the home, dictating how children should be raised. That’s not governance, that’s overreach.
A government should never have the authority to override a parent’s judgement on how to raise their own children. Once a government starts "parenting", it undermines the very foundation of family autonomy and personal responsibility.
So yes, it is simple. Parenting belongs to parents, families, and carers, not politicians.
The moment we outsource parenting to the state is the moment we've become terrible parents unworthy of raising children.
EDIT:
I'm not against improving the toxic state of the online world.
There's so much more that can be done with online safety for our children.
However, they are completely ignoring known toxic and pedophile hangout spots such as Roblox, Discord, and other online gaming communities. They don't care about porn site access or restricting access to 4chan. No... Let's stop kids from logging into Instagram and YouTube. Lol...
Last edited:
Popular with whom?
“too much else to worry about”, parenting not your number one priority, seems like this law is to save you from yourself. Perhaps raising kids is not for you. And that is the problem, too many inbred numpties multiplying amongst themselves.
Correct.
The reality is, that there's a bunch of baby adults out there, and they need big brother to help them raise their own children.
Idiots everywhere.
I did a very stupid thing of letting my kid watch TV when he was just 2 just to get some timeout, now at 3 years old he can perfectly use the Apple TV remote to turn on, find YTkids, then go watch Peppa or Bluey by himself and it's getting tough already to stop him. Thankfully, he still listens to us and we are reducing his screen time. Will be very aware of not letting him on social media until he's a teen.
P.S Oh the garbage chinese animation content on YTkids is mind numbing and block after block it keeps popping with new channels.
P.S Oh the garbage chinese animation content on YTkids is mind numbing and block after block it keeps popping with new channels.
🙄Governments seek power. You people gave away your free speech rights.
Really. Here that is a fringe opinion to be found amongst flat-earthers and the like.
I've got to say it is quite amusing seeing Americans here just not getting it. I don't know if the U.S. is just bad at doing government, or if there is just a cultural difference in people's thinking of what the purpose of governments are.
It’s not overreach when people voted for this as a policy at the last election.
Well, Americans are naturally skeptical of government (for better or for worse) because of our history of rebellion and belief in fundamental rights. When the founders of your country say things like, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. But when the government fears the people, there is liberty." You should expect that to still run in the veins of the country.
There's two kinds of power skepticism, the stupid kind, and the wise kind, Americans can fall into either category.
My concerns mostly lie in the right to anonymous speech (something explicitly protected in American constitutional law) being lost. Obviously American constitutional law doesn't apply to Aus, but I still think it's a good principle.
There has to be a way to deal with this that doesn't diminish that right. California chose to codify parental controls and ban companies from collecting IDs for the purpose of simply verifying age online, and I lean more towards that decision.
I didn't say I couldn't think of anyone; I asked (rhetorically) you to make a complete list to illustrate the difficulty of deciding who does and doesn't "deserve a voice". I asked you because I can't think of a fair way to decide.
Just like most of us did pre mid 2000's
Actually government doing what Meta, Twitter, Reddit et al should have been doing.
Pornography has been around a lot longer, and the USA, where porn is seen as more offensive, than gun, and violence based movies, has simply put this 'genre' in the too hard basket. To legislate in the USA on social media, is to effectively legislate against American companies.
New Zealand is the furtherest on the bottom side, and was one of the countries, where new technologies were launched, mobile phones were omnipresent in NZ in 1993. Remarkably, much like Australia, NZ folks see social media useful, for within their own countries primarily.
The so called bad parents can be one of many types. For example, the wealthy family, who give their child computers and phones, so they can keep in touch, and assume, as they are 'well to do', their kids are intelligent enough to know what to do. The poor parents, who scrimp and save, to get their kid a phone, so they are not left out of social groups, and as they blew the cash, haven't got the time to police the devices.
Last edited:
We can leave that to the law makers, the same people who decide who gets what rights and when they’re taken away, like drivers licences, gun licences, working with children access, incarceration, etc..
Last edited:
That's a misrepresentation of the situation. Both major parties promised a social media ban, so in a 2 party, preferrential, first-past-the-post voting system, people really didn't have a chance to vote against it in any meaningful way. It was also not a significant election issue because both parties promised the same thing, which means most people probably didn't even know about it.
"Albanese's statements followed an earlier pledge by Liberal opposition leader Peter Dutton to implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of being elected." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment
And by the same measure neither side saw an advantage in not promising to do it.
But the suggestion that 'people voted for it' is misleading. Most people would not have even known it existed as a policy and most third party votes would have ultimately found their way to one of the major parties who were not promoting it.
This was a not a major promise from Labor and they did not campaign on the issue at all. Bi-partisan support doesn't mean something is popular. MP pay rises have bi-partisan support and most Australians would disagree with them but still vote for the same politicians that support it.
I don't have a problem with kicking kids off social media, but making the claim that 'people voted for it' is just a misleading statement - at best, ill-informed and at worst, dishonest.