12 ms·

I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. I think phones and social

by feb012025 9mo ago

I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. I think phones and social media are harmful, but I get the sense there's a political motive behind this. We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, etc... And suddenly they ban social media. Rahm Emanuel is campaigning for the same thing in America. I don't believe they're overly concerned with "helping the kids" unfortunately

OhioMan2943 9mo ago
Congrats for arguing for... enabling child exploitation? The esafety report stated it was not allowed for sites to screen all users ages, and that all services had to provide a non id method of age verification.
callamdelaney 9mo ago
"I think drugs are harmful, but I get the sense there's a political motive behind this." Social medial is a drug, it has serious effects on the brain function and mental health of children and adolescents. On top of this social media allows predators to freely interact with children. If people are going to do drugs, which they probably will, they should be able to balance the pro's and cons.
whimsicalism 9mo ago
Scrollable video is killing the Dems in general, not just because of Israel. It's like all the worst of local news crime reporting on steroids.
- feb012025 9mo ago
  Each party is splitting into factions. I imagine the establishment of both parties think social media is a problem
  - whimsicalism 9mo ago
    Maybe. I think it's overall a rightward shift, only in urban cores is it accelerating a leftward shift. To the extent that it is motivating marginal voters to vote (which I think it is), it is also benefitting the right. It's also breaking down ethnic voting patterns in a way that benefits the right, I think.
    - pessimizer 9mo ago
      It is not motivating marginal voters to vote. The choice is between two nearly identical establishment candidates from two private clubs. The electorate is going the same way it's going in Europe, except in Europe other parties are legal (although marginalized through parliamentary methods.) In the UK, for example, Reform has been consistently polling the same as the Conservatives and Labour added together., and all three of those added together only represent 2/3 of the electorate. In the US, that translates to 2/3 of people becoming non-voters. Why that might look like a rightward shift in the US is because the Republicans don't fix their primaries (since the 90s), and their voters actually have an effect on who gets picked to run. Why it won't actually be a rightward shift is because Republicans ignore their platforms after being elected, and don't mind getting thrown out at the end of a term or two to work at the businesses they helped while in office. Democrats simply don't believe in any sort of democracy anymore. They invest all their effort into yelling at black people and Hispanics, and raising as much money as they can from the worst people in the world. The rest of the time they spend attacking anybody running to the left of them as racist or Russian, while their media outlets simply ignore those people other than when they're helping promote the slander. That's whats pushing away "ethnic voting." As a black person, I know when the voting season is here because I see a bunch of paid Democrats running around calling black people who criticize their party ethnic slurs and using the word "massa" a lot. Republicans don't do that. They don't rely on black people so just ignore us. Democrats rely on us, but will never do anything for us, so they use terror.
      - whimsicalism 9mo ago
        I definitely think your views are a good example of what I mean, it’s giving internet poisoning.
- henryfjordan 9mo ago
  Youtube really wants to send me down the alt-right pipeline. I watch a few WW2 history videos and suddenly I must identify with "Mr Mustache" as the kids say. TikTok wants to radicalize me the other way, and shows me every video of a cop abusing their power that they can find. It cuts both ways. I think what's killing Dems is that they don't understand the medium. Mamdani did really well by making good social media posts. Him and Trump had a grand old time at the whitehouse because they have a competent grasp on social media in common. Newsom has been trolling lately and his approval ratings are only going up. Dems being a million years old is killing the dems.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Octoth0rpe 9mo ago
    > I think what's killing Dems is that they don't understand the medium. Generally agree, but > Him and Trump had a grand old time at the whitehouse Yeah, but that wasn't entirely positively received, despite his earlier social media success. Him buddying up with Trump was a huuuuge turn off for me. > Newsom has been trolling lately and his approval ratings are only going up. Newsom's content is also a huge turn off for me, and I am not convinced that his supposed approval ratings are not simply more CTR type machinations from the DNC. Maybe there's some segment of the population that genuinely wants whatever the hell Newsom is pushing content-wise, I certainly don't have #s on my side. Mamdani's efforts - Trump buddying aside - were much better. > Dems being a million years old is killing the dems. Yes, but I think age is simply a proxy for a number of other highly correlated behaviors and positions. Most progressives can name a couple of >70yo dems for whom these complaints do not apply.
    - roguecoder 9mo ago
      And there are 31 year old Dems who sound like James Carville reincarnate. Unfortunately, the young Dems with the biggest fundraising rolodexes are usually the ones supported by the fundraising apparatus that already exists.
  - whimsicalism 9mo ago
wahnfrieden 9mo ago
All popular grooming platforms were already excluded from this policy
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 9mo ago
  I thought that was curious as well. Roblox is allowed? Really?
jfindper 9mo ago
Agreed. I'm no fan of social media, and especially not a fan of TikTok and Instagram. But I really doubt this is about the kids more than it is about getting another foothold along the path of controlling internet access wholesale.
1121redblackgo 9mo ago
I actually do think people directly see the negative public health impact, its so visceral in so many parents lives, and that that is the driving force behind all of this. I love being cynical, but I actually do buy these efforts as being purely "for the kids", kind of thing. Sure, there are knock-on effects, but I do buy the good faith-ness of phone bans in school and of these social media bans for kids.
- jfindper 9mo ago
  I think this might be true at the parent level, but less and less true as you climb up the government ladder. The shitty part is that when the parents really do believe something is "for the kids", it becomes that much easier to push through laws that have awful side effects (intentional ones or not). Which is why "for the kids" is so common, of course.
- jmathai 9mo ago
  It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 9mo ago
    Interesting, my experience is completely opposite; I'm not losing to them at all. Honest conversations with your kids from an early age are key.
    - fn-mote 9mo ago
      How do you know you’re not losing? How many years of evidence do you have? I think I won my battle against being addicted to games… but I don’t go back to find out.
    - poguemahoney 9mo ago
      I'd view that as more of a works for me argument than necessarily actionable. Social dynamics are complex and personality, status, etc, plays into which relationships end up mattering, being convincing, etc. I.e. some children bond closer to a grandparent not because parents have failed in any way at honest conversations.
cess11 9mo ago
Whether intentional or not, one consequence of a success in this area would be to isolate older people from the views of young people and to stifle the younger generations influence on these communication media in the future. Personally I suspect these elderly people in powerful political positions to be quite afraid of kids, it wouldn't be the first time in history, but it's likely the first time they're this old and as alienated from younger generations as they are. Perhaps we're seeing patriarchal class societies mutate into primarily gerontocratical societies.
- Lendal 9mo ago
  I chuckled when I read that, when over-16 is considered elderly. What will we do when we no longer have the views of 14 year olds at our fingertips? Well, hopefully they will write their views down on notepaper, and in two years we'll hear all about it.
Barrin92 9mo ago
>We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, When Twitter added its location feature and it turned out that political accounts with millions of followers are run out of Pakistan or India you have to be crazy to still deny the scope of foreign influence that is exerted over social media. You see it with the rise in anti-semitism or Russia's explicit promotion of influencers targeting Western youth. Why on earth would we let our kids be brainwashed by foreign intelligence agencies? There is no reason to assume this is some "hidden agenda", this is as big of a public issue as the mental health of teenagers. The United States used to have media rules that limited foreign ownership in companies with a broadcasting license, and now 14 year olds get their political lessons straight from Moscow, it's ridiculous.
- feb012025 9mo ago
  I would reject the notion that shifting public sentiment is a result of foreign influence campaigns, which is not to say it doesn't exist to an extent. I've seen plenty of real information, from non-anonymous American journalists that I'm certain are the largest factor in any sea-change amongst Americans. And despite the claim, I've yet to see solid evidence of large, pakistan-based accounts wielding massive influence on twitter. Most anonymous accounts that focus on current events tend to be located in America, Europe, or Canada from what I've seen.
- MSFT_Edging 9mo ago
  To be fair, "anti-semitism" claims have been 90% bad faith. Gaza was the internet's Vietnam. We got just as mad at the internet letting our citizens at home see the brutality as we did with Jane Fonda and calling her "Hanoi Jane" after she traveled to Vietnam to bring light to the conflict(not a war). I don't think there's any merit in being upset at dead children being reported because it messes with our national security goals. If the goals don't have public support with truthful reporting, they're basically illegitimate.
realityloop 9mo ago
All the ban does is stop kids from having accounts, if the service allows anonymous usage then they can still find somewhere to doom scroll. My teen son has been blocked from Snapchat, and was this evening doom scrolling on Tik Tok until I blocked it on our home network.
- Extropy_ 9mo ago
  I'm curious to understand why your approach to TikTok is banning it. Why do you think this is the right solution? Are you concerned at all about your son's ability to cope independently from oversight and control?
  - rwmj 9mo ago
    I'm actually glad to read about a parent taking responsibility. There's nothing important about Tiktok that won't wait until the child is 16/18.
  - realityloop 9mo ago
    No, it’s that he will spend hours doom scrolling whatever they feed to him.. I’ve tried to lead him down a path of watching more educational stuff on YouTube but he will just end up doom scrolling shorts.. I’m trying to figure out ways to enable him access but not have him waste hours with shorts.. I know there must be short form content that’s good but I’ve not seen any evidence watching over his shoulder.. I block shorts on YouTube for myself even.. at this point the best I can think of is allowing access in short windows of time with longer chunks of blocked access.. if anyone has ideas I’d love to hear them.
    - Extropy_ 9mo ago
      What happens when he goes to school? Moves out? You die? Who will be there to block TikTok on the LAN?
      - roguecoder 9mo ago
        That is Hank Green's Focus Friend is for, right? Adults actually are trying to solve this problem.
Sevrene 9mo ago
I don't think we should normalise children on platforms where the content contains political agitation, sexual and violent content, crypto and fintech scams, etc. Especially when this content is packaged up to them and commodified. These platforms make more money than the ATO (Australian Tax Office) brings in a year. I think they have the moral obligation and means to create safer spaces- either inside or seperate from their adult platforms; they can reduce or prevent the types of harms when children are exposed to this type of content. Whether this approach is the best one, or even worth it as it is written in law is definitely something you can argue, but the idea that there isn't a legitimate goal here (keeping children safe), just isn't true. I know not everyone that says this always has good intentions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing harm upon them. If you look back at vox pops from when drink-driving laws were introduced, or when seatbelts became mandatory, or when ID requirements were tightened, the arguments for and against were eerily similar. We haven’t changed much in that regard, but now people wear seatbelts, children can’t buy cigarettes as easily as they used to, and drink-driving rates have fallen. I think these are noble goals.
- jfindper 9mo ago
  >If you look back at vox pops from when drink-driving laws were introduced, or when seatbelts became mandatory, or when ID requirements were tightened, the arguments for and against were eerily similar. If you think the arguments are eerily similar, I feel like you haven't really been listening to the arguments against these types of age-verification-for-websites laws. I mean, there's some similarities, of course. But I think there are some very stark differences.
  - Sevrene 9mo ago
    >I feel like you haven't really been listening to the arguments against these types of age-verification-for-websites laws. Or maybe I just have a different conclusion to you? Because I do care, I do try to listen to the arguments. I'm no stranger to advocacy for civil liberties, they are important to me. I think all else being equal, freedom should be valued more over harm prevention. So if I'm for these laws, consider that a sign of how bad these sites have become, not how uninformed I am. > I mean, there's some similarities, of course. But I think there are some very stark differences. Yep of course it's not a 1:1, I agree. I don't mean to imply that people saying the same arguments today are wrong simply because people in the past were, but it does make me think more about it when I spot the same rhetoric. Often both sides have very reasonable concerns, as an example, the question isn't "should we have all or no freedom" Either extreme creates issues, yet both sides have valid arguments worth our time considering. We settle somewhere in the middle. Here's one vox pop with the introduction of breathalizers in UK (1967): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg
whompyjaw 9mo ago
Maybe. Do you forget that people use to not have phones or social media and they still had independent thought? Just because kids aren’t introduced to videos and comments about politics at a young age, doesn’t mean they’re going to be brainwashed by the ruling government. Societies operated just the same before social media. Edit: Dont get me wrong, there could be ulterior motives, but kids will have other ways to educate themselves on the happenings of the world beside social media
mbix77 9mo ago
Maybe they will use more common sense then getting manipulated by bot farms.
strangattractor 9mo ago
Meta == Phillip Morris - This is a public health issue and will likely need to be treated like tobacco. Kids can't vote so I don't see the political motivation.
- josho 9mo ago
  Good analogy. The solution, however, isn't prohibition or age restrictions; it's either regulating the algorithms or holding these companies responsible for the adverse outcomes their platforms contribute to. Safe harbor laws made sense when tech wasn't filtering/promoting content, now that they are influencing the material we see, these laws must no longer apply. This may mean adopting a modern equivalent to libel laws. Something akin to: if an algorithm pushes false information, the company behind the algorithm can be sued for harm. Disallow terms of service that force arbitration or cap liability limits.
  - strangattractor 9mo ago
    I dislike banning things as much as the next person. I have raised a kid though. I know parents that have limited their children's access to social media and gaming. The children seem less anxious and have longer attention spans in my anecdotal opinion. I am for punishing companies that seem to think it is ok to be socially irresponsible if profitable;)
  - thfuran 9mo ago
    I think the solution is banning accepting compensation for third party advertising.
    - qu4z-2 9mo ago
      I know all the reasons it "wouldn't work", but I'd love to see somewhere try this.
- JohnMakin 9mo ago
  They'll vote eventually, and preferably won't be damaged in irreparable ways by then
lawlessone 9mo ago
Just my anecdote addled opinion but i seems like most of the people being mentally "cooked" by social media are in their 30's ,my generation, and up to maybe late 60's.
0xbadcafebee 9mo ago
There's no motive other than "easy politicial win". The kids aren't gonna vote against you (they don't vote), parents will vote for you, you get to show people you protected children and passed legislation. Politicians support anything that keeps them in votes and campaign contributions.
- protocolture 9mo ago
  Kids dont vote, but when they do they tend to come in radicalised and swinging. Voter intention in Australia has shifted heavily towards minor parties over the last decade. While this is currently being captured by our preferential voting system, the tipping point is 1 - 2 elections away. Isolating kids from current events and society can easily be seen as a potential extra bullwark against changing voter intentions, because Minor partiers tend to favour social media engagement against paying for expensive ads.
awesome_dude 9mo ago
A conspiracy theory? This time of the year? In New hampshire???? Apologies, you might be right, you might not, but unless you have some actual evidence you might as well be saying "The Moon landing was a Hoax"
gspencley 9mo ago
In most legal jurisdictions that I know of, kids aren't legally allowed to be able to access to pornography either. How is that working out? The only way to even attempt to enforce these things is with government mandated age verification. Few people want that as it represents a massive violation of privacy and effectively makes anonymity on the Internet impossible.
- oblio 9mo ago
  It could be designed to be anonymous. Government runs authentication service that has your personal details. User creates account on platform Y, platform Y asks government service if your age is >18, service says y/n. Platform never finds out your personal details. OAuth for age verification.
  - swiftcoder 9mo ago
    The government still knows your identity in this scenario, so it's a pretty limited form of anonymity (i.e. only suitable for activities the government isn't hostile to)
    - oblio 9mo ago
      I know Americans don't want to hear this, but once the government turns hostile, internet anonymity won't save you, just like how guns won't save you (hello propaganda and a large and very active brainwashed minority that also has guns). The only thing saving you from a hostile government is a well educated populace that really wants democracy and is willing to fight for it (through constant activism, peaceful & other types of protests). This is where many democracies are failing now. No amount of technology or rules can replace large amounts of constantly vigilant eyes that understand how democracy is subverted. I would rather optimize for not giving companies too much power and end up with a Kafkaesque patchwork of corporate abuses and regulatory captures.
    - tim-- 9mo ago
      Can't you just put a middle man on there then? Get a non-profit organisation like Mozilla to ask the govt. on behalf of the user. The organisation asks the govt, and gives back a signed token. The the only thing the government knows is that an age verification was requested. Once verification has been done once for one site, it can be used for future verifications.
b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
It's also a massive propaganda channel. We can argue about whether any one particular state is involved in that or not but gut reaction is that if this were the real concern, their solution would be to regulate and censor what is posted online rather than kicking them off the platform and thus detaching them from the teat of (alleged) indoctrination. (that push for censorship also exists). Maybe Australia and the US are not involved in any social media propaganda campaigns but, at least in the case of the US, there is most certainly an abundance of precedence. I don't know the sincere feelings of these types wrt the safety and well-being of children but I don't think the goal is "getting them back" wrt policy or whatever.
- ang_cire 9mo ago
  > It's also a massive propaganda channel. The problem is that school curriculum is as well. I remember going to school in Texas and hearing the phrase "Northern War of Aggression" to describe the Civil War. Censorship is never about cutting off information, it's only ever about cutting off information that the censors don't like. Given how openly hostile both AU and the US's governments are to progressive politics and worldviews, I am dubious that this isn't about controlling kids' access to a more open view of the world than their schools will give them.
  - b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm still unconvinced. I think it is a very obvious backdoor to forcing online ID without having to call it an ID law.
    - ang_cire 9mo ago
      I think you and I are on the same side of this particular argument.
  - bamboozled 9mo ago
    The Australian government isn’t banning books. It’s banning access to harmful content for people under 16. One morning I logged into Reddit and saw a video of Charlie Kirk get his head blown off. I didn’t want to see that, but for some reason it wasn’t taken down yet. I’m really glad my 12 year old daughter didn’t have to see that…
papichulo4 9mo ago
Why does the motivation matter so much? It’s not a global ban, it’s not a permanent ban, nobody is going to jail. It’s like seeing if moving the smoking age to 18 will improve health outcomes. It’s ruining their lives as far as we can tell, and at the end of the day it’s just one country testing it out. It’ll be stastically significant, culturally close enough of a sample set for us to learn from. I’m curious to see what the 1-2-3 year effects are. We need to let some real life experimentation happen, somewhere, instead of accepting what every conglomerate wants. I get that “it’s easy to say” for me as someone completely unaffected by this law. The study that was posted last week regarding at school banning of phones was enlightening. It improved scores within two years after a bit of resistance. Boom! I want them to have a chance at being healthy and well-educated; we can’t stop teens from smoking altogether but we can sure limit their access by default.
- bamboozled 9mo ago
  Don’t you know this is the end of democracy as we know it because kids can’t easily look at toxic content online anymore ?
stevage 9mo ago
> We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions I have literally never heard this. The ban doesn't stop teens consuming social media content like tik tok. Your argument seems like quite a stretch.
- swiftcoder 9mo ago
  > The ban doesn't stop teens consuming social media content like tik tok. That is exactly what the ban aims to do? TikTok is literally listed in the article as one of the platforms ordered to ban access by under-16s
  - XorNot 9mo ago
    The ban is on having an account. Tiktok video is publicly viewable.
    - swiftcoder 9mo ago
      > Tiktok video is publicly viewable Is it still publicly viewable without age verification in Australia? It's a little unclear from TFA whether the ban is purely on account creation, or also applies to viewing.
      - protocolture 9mo ago
        Yes. Ditto Youtube. And 4chan. It takes the completely ridiculous idea that harm is caused by having an account. Youtube even pointed out that, the lack of account means it cant work its algo magic to try and push age appropriate videos to users. Government doesnt care. No Account. No Problem. Ironically, youtube is now more likely to send kids andrew tate or russian propaganda to kids.
      - XorNot 9mo ago
        I'm in Australia on a phone without VPN and do not have a Tiktok account: googling "Tiktok" just now direct linked me to Tiktok's Web app and started auto playing. AFAIK this is strictly on having an account.
observationist 9mo ago
It's four horsemen of the infocalypse 101. Look at the platforms they allowed to continue - discord and roblox, the specific worst of all socials with the most predators, least effective countermeasures. The purpose of a thing is what it does. Australia's policies do not protect children. They quite brazenly and blatantly leave children vulnerable and exploited. The question of what those actions accomplish has a simple answer - narrative control, censorship, and weaponization of public discourse against dissent. The real solution to these problems are cultural. If you want the best outcomes for kids, then reinforce stable loving family environments, empower a culture of resilience and competence and capability, impose accountability for wrongdoing, negligence, and careless operation. If teachers and families are leaving kids vulnerable, the solution is better education and more information. None of the policy Australia crafted does anything good. It's just another power grab using "won't you think of the children?!" as the excuse. Next year it will be terrorism or drugs or money laundering, and they'll keep constricting around civil liberties until they have absolute control. They'll also put various racial and ethnic officials in prominent positions, so that you may not criticize anything lest you be deemed a racist or bigot (super effective social engineering.)
- vablings 9mo ago
  > The real solution to these problems are cultural. If you want the best outcomes for kids, then reinforce stable loving family environments, empower a culture of resilience and competence and capability, impose accountability for wrongdoing, negligence, and careless operation. If teachers and families are leaving kids vulnerable, the solution is better education and more information. This is just complete bullshit. Ah yes, my solution to this problem is just to require every single family to be infinitely better in every way imaginable. What is the proposal if that can't happen? We just execute people who don't meet the "stable loving family environment" No doubt in my mind you are from the generation of a stiff upper lip
  - observationist 9mo ago
    You fix it with better culture. You don't throw away your principles and liberties because "bad things are happening to children, quick, burn the system down!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
chemotaxis 9mo ago
> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. I mean... you can say that about most of things in life. Behind every social movement or policy, it's always a mix of good faith, cynical fearmongering, and opportunism by people or organizations who stand to gain something from it. Does it matter? If you think that social media and smartphones are harmful to the youth, you (a) should probably be glad that someone is doing something decisive about it; and (b) you get a large-scale experiment that will hopefully prove or disprove that.
- soulofmischief 9mo ago
  This is an extremely unethical experiment.
patrickmcnamara 9mo ago
Non-American countries are also importing a lot of American politics. I'd rather that didn't happen and is alone worthy of curbing in my opinion.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
dalemhurley 9mo ago
Clearly this comment is propaganda. This bill had bipartisan support and the Labor government has a significant share of the young voters who are over 18.
bdangubic 9mo ago
unfortunately there is nothing we can do in any society without seeing comments like this… whatever “move” is done comments like this will be there with endless “analysis” about “motivation” for the move… it is what it is…
- feb012025 9mo ago
  The nature of democracy and open dialogue I suppose. But really, when banning a large portion of the population from social media, political motives should absolutely be entertained. Politics is inextricably related to social media in 2025
  - bdangubic 9mo ago
    in 2025 politics is inextricably related to everything
clickety_clack 9mo ago
I think adults are barely able to take reasoned political positions in today’s online environment, but at least an adult has the experience to make the attempt. Exposing kids to the type of online political persuasion we have today means that we are exposing them to something they have not got the tools to navigate. They just get swept up into whatever the popular idea of the day happens to be. To me, the argument that separating kids from social media separates them from today’s political onslaught is one of the best arguments in favor of it.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
gary_0 9mo ago
This worldwide push for online ID verification is absolutely not in good faith, and I'm shocked at how few people on "Hacker" News are seeing it for what it is. Imagine going on 1990's or 2000's Usenet and telling those folks they'd have to upload government ID to prove they weren't children and keep using the system. Virtually everyone would have shouted this Big Brother shit down until it was their dying breath.
- AnonymousPlanet 9mo ago
  Parts of Usenet actually mandated real names. The idea was to make discussions more civilised. It didn't. And on top of that people were now subject to stalking and doxxing. I remember a poster who had a link to a defamation site in his signature. The site was targeted at another frequent poster in that newsgroup, detailing his address and his alleged intellectual failings.
- serial_dev 9mo ago
  But think of the children! Or the terrorist! Or communists! Whichever makes you accept the surveillance state.
  - gary_0 9mo ago
    The nanny-state control freaks used "think of the children" so often over the years that it became a meme, and yet here we are. What a workhorse!
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- bamboozled 9mo ago
  America had all the access to free information and voted in an authoritarian anyway so what’s it matter ? I don’t care anymore about this emotive argument that you’re putting forward. The government knows everything about you because you pay for internet. Maybe you pretend to yourself you’re someone anonymous because you use a VPN but if they want to know who you are, they know. At least maybe this ban will stop some of the idiocy bleeding into the next generation.
XorNot 9mo ago
The policy has like 70% popular support. "What are they really doing?" is a stupid conspiracy brained question: trying to win the next election obviously and whatever you may think, representing the electorate. (I hate the policy personally)
lo_zamoyski 9mo ago
Asking "cui bono?" is always a sound question to ask in a political or commercial context, but it should not be the only one. Don't fall prey to appeal to motive. Even if the motivation is self-serving, it need not be bad per se.
ricardobeat 9mo ago
> Rahm Emanuel is campaigning for the same thing in America. I get the sense this is supposed to signify something; don't know the name, but looking at their profile, great career, Obama's chief of staff. What's the implication?
- roguecoder 9mo ago
  He is a pro-authoritian-control Democrat, so it is unsurprising that he is more worried about control of information than he is the Constitution. His background is in finance and his political goal is generally management of the country by a monied elite without particular oversight. He was paid by Goldman Sachs to help Clinton get elected by raising massive amounts of money. During Obama's term he structured the DNC to be about his personal power rather than supporting Democrats across the country, costing Democrats the midterms. As mayor of Chicago he covered up a murder committed by a police officer and refused to comply with transparency laws. On the other hand, this particular position is probably just part of the Israeli campaign against TikTok: Emanuel volunteered for the IDF and has long been an anti-Palestinian activist.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
solumunus 9mo ago
I think not letting children get barraged with misinformation and foreign propaganda might help them.
pryce 9mo ago
The ingredients for this legislation trace back to an organisation called "Collective Shout"[1], by Melinda Tankard Reist, who readers may be aware of from their previous efforts to pressure Steam to restrict games with adult content I happen to think there are plenty of valid points regarding harmful content on steam and valid arguments about the harms of social media, but I do not believe Collective Shout is a benevolent actor in combatting those harms or steering the solutions, as their proposals nearly always deliver harmful effects on LGBTQ people - and this fits with Reist's previous work[2], eg under Sen. Harradine [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Shout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Shout [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist
- msuniverse2026 9mo ago
  That is just a thought-stopping reference. Why does this literal nobody who nobody has to listen to have the total backing of both major political parties? That is the real question and it obviously goes back to narrative control and the move from democracy to an authoritarian managerial state.
  - pryce 9mo ago
    moral panics are useful for creating authoritarian states. If a moral panic is not presently available, in 2025 it may be easier it's ever been before to cultivate one.
- Nursie 9mo ago
  My favourite micro pressure-group in Australia is the Pedestrian Council of Australia. Whenever there's talk about car safety measures, e-scooters or anything else, the press goes to the official-sounding "Pedestrian Council of Australia" for comment. And obligingly, Harold Scruby who is the CEO, Chairman and entire membership of said council will hold forth. He's been spectacularly successful at getting himself listened to, as if he represented something. Collective shout are just as illegitimate.
  - 9mo ago
immibis 9mo ago
¿Por que no los dos? Current social media is terrible for children (and everyone, but we let adults drink and smoke) - this is known. They've been told many times they need to change or they'll get banned. They have not. This is known. It reminds me a little of when Australia banned Amazon because Amazon refused to charge GST (their version of VAT or sales tax). The surveillance part is about adults having to upload their identity. This concern is entirely separate from the part where children are banned.
endgame 9mo ago
Of course they aren't. If they were actually helping kids, they would be going after algorithmic feeds in general and the most predatory platforms like Roblox (especially given its recent scandals), doing something about kids being exposed to gambling advertising, etc. The bill was put up for public comment for less than one business day before being rammed through Parliament. Australia is just sending out one of the horsemen of the infocalypse so that other countries have an excuse to follow suit. Like how our "Assistance And Access" Act was a test run of the UK's "snooper's charter". This law will just lead to: 1. kids pretending to be adults so they sneak through these filters 2. platforms winding back their (meagre) child safety efforts since "children are banned anyway" 3. everyone being forced to prove their age via e.g. uploading ID (which will inevitably get leaked)
- palata 9mo ago
  > kids pretending to be adults so they sneak through these filters The real question is: how hard does it make it for them to pretend to be adults? We just need it to be hard enough that most kids won't do it. > platforms winding back their (meagre) child safety efforts since "children are banned anyway" If the law forces the platforms to properly ban children, I don't see how they can do that. If you're thinking that the platforms will just say "it's illegal for children to join, so we don't have to do anything because they shouldn't come in the first place", then I don't think the law is made like this. > everyone being forced to prove their age via e.g. uploading ID (which will inevitably get leaked) Some countries have been working on privacy-preserving age verification. I find it's a lot better than uploading an ID.
  - Animats 9mo ago
    > We just need it to be hard enough that most kids won't do it. Silly though that sounds, it might work. Because it's social pressure from other kids to be online that drives many kids into being constantly on Instagram and Snapchat. If you're not online, you don't know what's going on. The big social networks monetize FOMO. If a sizable fraction of kids aren't on social media, that's not where it's happening any more. The pressure goes away. Or goes elsewhere.
dmitrygr 9mo ago
The enemy (AUS) of my enemy (social media's effect on kids) is my friend (this ban). Their motivation is only mildly interesting.
tiew9Vii 9mo ago
Australia is a huge contradiction. “Kids” are no longer old enough to use social media as they are “kids”. At the same time Australia states are updating laws believing “kids” are old enough to be treated as and tried as adults in a court of law.
- girvo 9mo ago
  Indeed. We will stick them in prison, but they can’t use social media. It’s a farce.
- NoPicklez 9mo ago
  How is that a contradiction? Its not uncommon for laws that allow for teenagers (14 or above) to be tried as adults for more serious crimes. Should we prevent kids from doing things we think will harm them? Yes, should we give harsher penalties for kids who commit more serious crimes? Potentially.
nextstep 9mo ago
I don’t think the US will ever enact a similar ban. The power to shape young minds is too great, even if these service also increase suicides in children to some degree. The same algorithms that showed IDF war crimes compilations and turned a generation against Israel can be reshaped to push a different, right-wing narrative. The David Ellison’s of the world have too much power to allow regulation getting in the way of this.
jimbokun 9mo ago
TikTok is not going to make kids better informed about foreign policy.
giancarlostoro 9mo ago
> I don't believe they're overly concerned with "helping the kids" unfortunately We don't need laws for most things, and yet we've built ourselves a society where everything is a law.
jstummbillig 9mo ago
> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. Really! My experience is quite the opposite. I see a lot of people explaining why it's a bad idea.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
xedrac 9mo ago
Both can be true. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the consequences? I'm of the opinion that parents need to help regulate teen exposure, not the government. It does feel a bit like censorship.
epolanski 9mo ago
> We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, etc... What's the alternative? Going back to TV lying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that in Libya there's a genuine rebellion against Gaddafi? I'd rather have multiple actors fighting to push their views on social to be honest. I also don't like how quick is social media to jump on labelling anybody with a different opinion as a troll or a bot. This is especially common on Reddit where basically every single subreddit is heavily biased in some direction, heavily moderated to push some views and some views only. Instead, what we should teach in school is how to treat news (any news really, even your friend telling you he's got a Playstation 7 but he can't show it to you): questioning it, verifying the sources, questioning the possible motives and biases of the source. I'll be frank: I didn't mind Russia pushing their own news through channels like Russia Today globally. I always thought it was very important to get the views of the other side. But my view also requires my (normal to me) attitude: question, question, question, verify. Problem is: it's hard, it's exhausting. Claiming something false takes 5 seconds, debunking it can take hours. Most people already got their problems, and just don't do any of it.
multiplegeorges 9mo ago
> they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions It's well known that foreign actors are all over social and that the west's foreign policy is (rightly so!) hostile to them.
aus_throwaway 9mo ago
The Australian government didn’t do this because of any concern about children; it’s to punish (mainly) Meta for backing out of the Australian Social Media Bargaining Agreement [1]. Other social media companies are collateral damage. News Corp wanted Meta et al to pay for the privilege of sharing links to News Corp articles (imo, ridiculous). Meta played along for a short period, but has now refused to engage, which has clearly upset News Corp (and their shrinking top line). It’s slowly changing, but it’s an unfortunate truth that News Corp still has incredible influence over Australian politicians, hence this had bipartisan support. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/12/meta-could-face-millions-in-fines-for-not-signing-content-deals-in-australia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/12/meta-coul...
- stephen_g 9mo ago
  Just in case anyone is sceptical, is quite literally paying for sharing links - the legslation [1] says in part 52B that For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content available if: (a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service; or (b) a link to the content is provided on the service; or (c) an extract of the content is provided on the service. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit, for the purposes of this Part, the ways in which a service makes content available. Part 52B (1) means that the code explicitly defines that a social media site publishing a user post containing a link to a news site as being considered exactly the same as the social media site ripping off and publishing a copy of a whole article! The supporters of the bill then went around pretending that social media sites were ripping off whole articles and showing them on their sites with their own ads, when they are actually just linking and showing the title, thumbnail and sentence summary that the news site provides in its meta info! In the end, the news media bargaining code is effectively just a shakedown to extract money for nothing from tech companies. Part 52B makes the whole thing indefensible. 1. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00021/latest/text https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00021/latest/text
rstuart4133 9mo ago
> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. Most Australian schools banned phones a while ago. Attempts were made to measure the outcome. For example, South Australia saw a 72% drop in phone-related issues and 80.5% fall in social media problems in early 2025 compared to 2023 [0]. Other states reported similar results. These early figures are a little rubbery, but overall look very good. The social media ban is in part a response to that success. The only major concern I have is de-anonymization of the web. It's worse than just de-anonymization. They've opened the gate for organisations like Facebook to demand government ID, like say a photo of a drivers licence. It contains a whole pile of info these data vultures would like to get their hands on, like your actual date of birth and residential address. The sad bit is I doubt de-anonymization was goal, in fact I doubt they put much thought into that aspect of all. If it was the goal there far more effective ways of going about given the corporations permission to "collect whatever data you need to make it work". They could have implemented a zero knowledge proof of age service. But given the track record of their other computer projects, a realistic assessment is it had near zero chance of being implemented at all, let alone on time and on budget. But if they had of insisted the providers implemented some sort of ZKP themselves, I would have found it hard to argue against given the past experience in schools. [0] https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/school-behaviour-improving-after-mobile-phone-ban-and-vaping-reforms https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/school-behaviour-im...
- protocolture 9mo ago
  Is that the same report that failed to mention they changed the testing methodology for the year after the phone ban, and that an improvement was expected in SA test scores regardless?
- makeitdouble 9mo ago
  The report title > School behaviour improving after mobile phone ban and vaping reforms Vaping !? If we're discussing effect of phone bans at school, I think looking at a period where nicotine addiction was also strongly reduced makes the numbers pretty hard to interpret.
energy123 9mo ago
70-74% of voters in Australia and the UK want this. It's also a bipartisan legislation. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy among politicians. It's not just about the kids either. People know those kids are going to grown up and impact them one day. An avalanche of broken people is not conducive to what I want on a purely selfish level as a non-parent.
stephen_g 9mo ago
Yes, specifically Australian Labor hate social media because while they are to the left of the overton window here, in reality they are a centre-right party pretending to be progressive. But social media is where the actual progressive people congregate. This social media campaign though I believe actually came from a campaign by the newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Labor are always trying to placate News Corp media, and News Corp media still blatantly tell their readers not to vote for Labor. It hasn't worked for decades, but Labor seem to believe that one of these days it will be different (it won't). So politically it ticks some boxes for them, helps them suck up to the newspapers that will always hate them, helps diminish social media spaces where their opponents (actual progressives) congregate, and generally demonising "big tech" does just play well politically here.
pokstad 9mo ago
As someone with kids, I’m really surprised to hear this. I viciously keep my kids off social media. There’s no political connection. It’s a safety and mental health concern.
NothingAboutAny 9mo ago
[dead]
morshu9001 9mo ago
Yep, ADL and others publicly supported the US TikTok forced-sale specifically because of Israel, including the bill sponsors.
protocolture 9mo ago
Seems like they were particularly angry with our 6 News Aus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_News_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_News_Australia Where kids were reporting on and educating each other about news and politics.
Nursie 9mo ago
What "they" want is secondary - it's a pretty popular move here in Australia, it's what people largely want. Labor have been failing at giving people what they want recently, and are generally considered rather lacklustre and weak. But like the vaping ban (which was predicted to be and has now been confirmed to be a backward step), this is something parents are generally happy about. No conspiracy needed.

OhioMan2943 9mo ago

Congrats for arguing for... enabling child exploitation? The esafety report stated it was not allowed for sites to screen all users ages, and that all services had to provide a non id method of age verification.

callamdelaney 9mo ago

"I think drugs are harmful, but I get the sense there's a political motive behind this." Social medial is a drug, it has serious effects on the brain function and mental health of children and adolescents. On top of this social media allows predators to freely interact with children. If people are going to do drugs, which they probably will, they should be able to balance the pro's and cons.

whimsicalism 9mo ago

Scrollable video is killing the Dems in general, not just because of Israel. It's like all the worst of local news crime reporting on steroids.

feb012025 9mo ago
Each party is splitting into factions. I imagine the establishment of both parties think social media is a problem
- whimsicalism 9mo ago
  Maybe. I think it's overall a rightward shift, only in urban cores is it accelerating a leftward shift. To the extent that it is motivating marginal voters to vote (which I think it is), it is also benefitting the right. It's also breaking down ethnic voting patterns in a way that benefits the right, I think.
  - pessimizer 9mo ago
    It is not motivating marginal voters to vote. The choice is between two nearly identical establishment candidates from two private clubs. The electorate is going the same way it's going in Europe, except in Europe other parties are legal (although marginalized through parliamentary methods.) In the UK, for example, Reform has been consistently polling the same as the Conservatives and Labour added together., and all three of those added together only represent 2/3 of the electorate. In the US, that translates to 2/3 of people becoming non-voters. Why that might look like a rightward shift in the US is because the Republicans don't fix their primaries (since the 90s), and their voters actually have an effect on who gets picked to run. Why it won't actually be a rightward shift is because Republicans ignore their platforms after being elected, and don't mind getting thrown out at the end of a term or two to work at the businesses they helped while in office. Democrats simply don't believe in any sort of democracy anymore. They invest all their effort into yelling at black people and Hispanics, and raising as much money as they can from the worst people in the world. The rest of the time they spend attacking anybody running to the left of them as racist or Russian, while their media outlets simply ignore those people other than when they're helping promote the slander. That's whats pushing away "ethnic voting." As a black person, I know when the voting season is here because I see a bunch of paid Democrats running around calling black people who criticize their party ethnic slurs and using the word "massa" a lot. Republicans don't do that. They don't rely on black people so just ignore us. Democrats rely on us, but will never do anything for us, so they use terror.
    - whimsicalism 9mo ago
      I definitely think your views are a good example of what I mean, it’s giving internet poisoning.
henryfjordan 9mo ago
Youtube really wants to send me down the alt-right pipeline. I watch a few WW2 history videos and suddenly I must identify with "Mr Mustache" as the kids say. TikTok wants to radicalize me the other way, and shows me every video of a cop abusing their power that they can find. It cuts both ways. I think what's killing Dems is that they don't understand the medium. Mamdani did really well by making good social media posts. Him and Trump had a grand old time at the whitehouse because they have a competent grasp on social media in common. Newsom has been trolling lately and his approval ratings are only going up. Dems being a million years old is killing the dems.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- Octoth0rpe 9mo ago
  > I think what's killing Dems is that they don't understand the medium. Generally agree, but > Him and Trump had a grand old time at the whitehouse Yeah, but that wasn't entirely positively received, despite his earlier social media success. Him buddying up with Trump was a huuuuge turn off for me. > Newsom has been trolling lately and his approval ratings are only going up. Newsom's content is also a huge turn off for me, and I am not convinced that his supposed approval ratings are not simply more CTR type machinations from the DNC. Maybe there's some segment of the population that genuinely wants whatever the hell Newsom is pushing content-wise, I certainly don't have #s on my side. Mamdani's efforts - Trump buddying aside - were much better. > Dems being a million years old is killing the dems. Yes, but I think age is simply a proxy for a number of other highly correlated behaviors and positions. Most progressives can name a couple of >70yo dems for whom these complaints do not apply.
  - roguecoder 9mo ago
    And there are 31 year old Dems who sound like James Carville reincarnate. Unfortunately, the young Dems with the biggest fundraising rolodexes are usually the ones supported by the fundraising apparatus that already exists.
- whimsicalism 9mo ago

wahnfrieden 9mo ago

All popular grooming platforms were already excluded from this policy

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 9mo ago
I thought that was curious as well. Roblox is allowed? Really?

jfindper 9mo ago

Agreed. I'm no fan of social media, and especially not a fan of TikTok and Instagram. But I really doubt this is about the kids more than it is about getting another foothold along the path of controlling internet access wholesale.

1121redblackgo 9mo ago

I actually do think people directly see the negative public health impact, its so visceral in so many parents lives, and that that is the driving force behind all of this. I love being cynical, but I actually do buy these efforts as being purely "for the kids", kind of thing. Sure, there are knock-on effects, but I do buy the good faith-ness of phone bans in school and of these social media bans for kids.

jfindper 9mo ago
I think this might be true at the parent level, but less and less true as you climb up the government ladder. The shitty part is that when the parents really do believe something is "for the kids", it becomes that much easier to push through laws that have awful side effects (intentional ones or not). Which is why "for the kids" is so common, of course.
jmathai 9mo ago
It's very unfortunate. As a parent, I feel like it requires regulation at the national level because I can't win against Meta (FB, Insta), Google (Youtube), Snapchat and TikTok.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 9mo ago
  Interesting, my experience is completely opposite; I'm not losing to them at all. Honest conversations with your kids from an early age are key.
  - fn-mote 9mo ago
    How do you know you’re not losing? How many years of evidence do you have? I think I won my battle against being addicted to games… but I don’t go back to find out.
  - poguemahoney 9mo ago
    I'd view that as more of a works for me argument than necessarily actionable. Social dynamics are complex and personality, status, etc, plays into which relationships end up mattering, being convincing, etc. I.e. some children bond closer to a grandparent not because parents have failed in any way at honest conversations.

cess11 9mo ago

Whether intentional or not, one consequence of a success in this area would be to isolate older people from the views of young people and to stifle the younger generations influence on these communication media in the future. Personally I suspect these elderly people in powerful political positions to be quite afraid of kids, it wouldn't be the first time in history, but it's likely the first time they're this old and as alienated from younger generations as they are. Perhaps we're seeing patriarchal class societies mutate into primarily gerontocratical societies.

Lendal 9mo ago
I chuckled when I read that, when over-16 is considered elderly. What will we do when we no longer have the views of 14 year olds at our fingertips? Well, hopefully they will write their views down on notepaper, and in two years we'll hear all about it.

Barrin92 9mo ago

>We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, When Twitter added its location feature and it turned out that political accounts with millions of followers are run out of Pakistan or India you have to be crazy to still deny the scope of foreign influence that is exerted over social media. You see it with the rise in anti-semitism or Russia's explicit promotion of influencers targeting Western youth. Why on earth would we let our kids be brainwashed by foreign intelligence agencies? There is no reason to assume this is some "hidden agenda", this is as big of a public issue as the mental health of teenagers. The United States used to have media rules that limited foreign ownership in companies with a broadcasting license, and now 14 year olds get their political lessons straight from Moscow, it's ridiculous.

feb012025 9mo ago
I would reject the notion that shifting public sentiment is a result of foreign influence campaigns, which is not to say it doesn't exist to an extent. I've seen plenty of real information, from non-anonymous American journalists that I'm certain are the largest factor in any sea-change amongst Americans. And despite the claim, I've yet to see solid evidence of large, pakistan-based accounts wielding massive influence on twitter. Most anonymous accounts that focus on current events tend to be located in America, Europe, or Canada from what I've seen.
MSFT_Edging 9mo ago
To be fair, "anti-semitism" claims have been 90% bad faith. Gaza was the internet's Vietnam. We got just as mad at the internet letting our citizens at home see the brutality as we did with Jane Fonda and calling her "Hanoi Jane" after she traveled to Vietnam to bring light to the conflict(not a war). I don't think there's any merit in being upset at dead children being reported because it messes with our national security goals. If the goals don't have public support with truthful reporting, they're basically illegitimate.

realityloop 9mo ago

All the ban does is stop kids from having accounts, if the service allows anonymous usage then they can still find somewhere to doom scroll. My teen son has been blocked from Snapchat, and was this evening doom scrolling on Tik Tok until I blocked it on our home network.

Extropy_ 9mo ago
I'm curious to understand why your approach to TikTok is banning it. Why do you think this is the right solution? Are you concerned at all about your son's ability to cope independently from oversight and control?
- rwmj 9mo ago
  I'm actually glad to read about a parent taking responsibility. There's nothing important about Tiktok that won't wait until the child is 16/18.
- realityloop 9mo ago
  No, it’s that he will spend hours doom scrolling whatever they feed to him.. I’ve tried to lead him down a path of watching more educational stuff on YouTube but he will just end up doom scrolling shorts.. I’m trying to figure out ways to enable him access but not have him waste hours with shorts.. I know there must be short form content that’s good but I’ve not seen any evidence watching over his shoulder.. I block shorts on YouTube for myself even.. at this point the best I can think of is allowing access in short windows of time with longer chunks of blocked access.. if anyone has ideas I’d love to hear them.
  - Extropy_ 9mo ago
    What happens when he goes to school? Moves out? You die? Who will be there to block TikTok on the LAN?
    - roguecoder 9mo ago
      That is Hank Green's Focus Friend is for, right? Adults actually are trying to solve this problem.

Sevrene 9mo ago

I don't think we should normalise children on platforms where the content contains political agitation, sexual and violent content, crypto and fintech scams, etc. Especially when this content is packaged up to them and commodified. These platforms make more money than the ATO (Australian Tax Office) brings in a year. I think they have the moral obligation and means to create safer spaces- either inside or seperate from their adult platforms; they can reduce or prevent the types of harms when children are exposed to this type of content. Whether this approach is the best one, or even worth it as it is written in law is definitely something you can argue, but the idea that there isn't a legitimate goal here (keeping children safe), just isn't true. I know not everyone that says this always has good intentions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing harm upon them. If you look back at vox pops from when drink-driving laws were introduced, or when seatbelts became mandatory, or when ID requirements were tightened, the arguments for and against were eerily similar. We haven’t changed much in that regard, but now people wear seatbelts, children can’t buy cigarettes as easily as they used to, and drink-driving rates have fallen. I think these are noble goals.

jfindper 9mo ago
>If you look back at vox pops from when drink-driving laws were introduced, or when seatbelts became mandatory, or when ID requirements were tightened, the arguments for and against were eerily similar. If you think the arguments are eerily similar, I feel like you haven't really been listening to the arguments against these types of age-verification-for-websites laws. I mean, there's some similarities, of course. But I think there are some very stark differences.
- Sevrene 9mo ago
  >I feel like you haven't really been listening to the arguments against these types of age-verification-for-websites laws. Or maybe I just have a different conclusion to you? Because I do care, I do try to listen to the arguments. I'm no stranger to advocacy for civil liberties, they are important to me. I think all else being equal, freedom should be valued more over harm prevention. So if I'm for these laws, consider that a sign of how bad these sites have become, not how uninformed I am. > I mean, there's some similarities, of course. But I think there are some very stark differences. Yep of course it's not a 1:1, I agree. I don't mean to imply that people saying the same arguments today are wrong simply because people in the past were, but it does make me think more about it when I spot the same rhetoric. Often both sides have very reasonable concerns, as an example, the question isn't "should we have all or no freedom" Either extreme creates issues, yet both sides have valid arguments worth our time considering. We settle somewhere in the middle. Here's one vox pop with the introduction of breathalizers in UK (1967): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg

whompyjaw 9mo ago

Maybe. Do you forget that people use to not have phones or social media and they still had independent thought? Just because kids aren’t introduced to videos and comments about politics at a young age, doesn’t mean they’re going to be brainwashed by the ruling government. Societies operated just the same before social media. Edit: Dont get me wrong, there could be ulterior motives, but kids will have other ways to educate themselves on the happenings of the world beside social media

mbix77 9mo ago

Maybe they will use more common sense then getting manipulated by bot farms.

strangattractor 9mo ago

Meta == Phillip Morris - This is a public health issue and will likely need to be treated like tobacco. Kids can't vote so I don't see the political motivation.

josho 9mo ago
Good analogy. The solution, however, isn't prohibition or age restrictions; it's either regulating the algorithms or holding these companies responsible for the adverse outcomes their platforms contribute to. Safe harbor laws made sense when tech wasn't filtering/promoting content, now that they are influencing the material we see, these laws must no longer apply. This may mean adopting a modern equivalent to libel laws. Something akin to: if an algorithm pushes false information, the company behind the algorithm can be sued for harm. Disallow terms of service that force arbitration or cap liability limits.
- strangattractor 9mo ago
  I dislike banning things as much as the next person. I have raised a kid though. I know parents that have limited their children's access to social media and gaming. The children seem less anxious and have longer attention spans in my anecdotal opinion. I am for punishing companies that seem to think it is ok to be socially irresponsible if profitable;)
- thfuran 9mo ago
  I think the solution is banning accepting compensation for third party advertising.
  - qu4z-2 9mo ago
    I know all the reasons it "wouldn't work", but I'd love to see somewhere try this.
JohnMakin 9mo ago
They'll vote eventually, and preferably won't be damaged in irreparable ways by then

lawlessone 9mo ago

Just my anecdote addled opinion but i seems like most of the people being mentally "cooked" by social media are in their 30's ,my generation, and up to maybe late 60's.

0xbadcafebee 9mo ago

There's no motive other than "easy politicial win". The kids aren't gonna vote against you (they don't vote), parents will vote for you, you get to show people you protected children and passed legislation. Politicians support anything that keeps them in votes and campaign contributions.

protocolture 9mo ago
Kids dont vote, but when they do they tend to come in radicalised and swinging. Voter intention in Australia has shifted heavily towards minor parties over the last decade. While this is currently being captured by our preferential voting system, the tipping point is 1 - 2 elections away. Isolating kids from current events and society can easily be seen as a potential extra bullwark against changing voter intentions, because Minor partiers tend to favour social media engagement against paying for expensive ads.

awesome_dude 9mo ago

A conspiracy theory? This time of the year? In New hampshire???? Apologies, you might be right, you might not, but unless you have some actual evidence you might as well be saying "The Moon landing was a Hoax"

gspencley 9mo ago

In most legal jurisdictions that I know of, kids aren't legally allowed to be able to access to pornography either. How is that working out? The only way to even attempt to enforce these things is with government mandated age verification. Few people want that as it represents a massive violation of privacy and effectively makes anonymity on the Internet impossible.

oblio 9mo ago
It could be designed to be anonymous. Government runs authentication service that has your personal details. User creates account on platform Y, platform Y asks government service if your age is >18, service says y/n. Platform never finds out your personal details. OAuth for age verification.
- swiftcoder 9mo ago
  The government still knows your identity in this scenario, so it's a pretty limited form of anonymity (i.e. only suitable for activities the government isn't hostile to)
  - oblio 9mo ago
    I know Americans don't want to hear this, but once the government turns hostile, internet anonymity won't save you, just like how guns won't save you (hello propaganda and a large and very active brainwashed minority that also has guns). The only thing saving you from a hostile government is a well educated populace that really wants democracy and is willing to fight for it (through constant activism, peaceful & other types of protests). This is where many democracies are failing now. No amount of technology or rules can replace large amounts of constantly vigilant eyes that understand how democracy is subverted. I would rather optimize for not giving companies too much power and end up with a Kafkaesque patchwork of corporate abuses and regulatory captures.
  - tim-- 9mo ago
    Can't you just put a middle man on there then? Get a non-profit organisation like Mozilla to ask the govt. on behalf of the user. The organisation asks the govt, and gives back a signed token. The the only thing the government knows is that an age verification was requested. Once verification has been done once for one site, it can be used for future verifications.

b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago

It's also a massive propaganda channel. We can argue about whether any one particular state is involved in that or not but gut reaction is that if this were the real concern, their solution would be to regulate and censor what is posted online rather than kicking them off the platform and thus detaching them from the teat of (alleged) indoctrination. (that push for censorship also exists). Maybe Australia and the US are not involved in any social media propaganda campaigns but, at least in the case of the US, there is most certainly an abundance of precedence. I don't know the sincere feelings of these types wrt the safety and well-being of children but I don't think the goal is "getting them back" wrt policy or whatever.

ang_cire 9mo ago
> It's also a massive propaganda channel. The problem is that school curriculum is as well. I remember going to school in Texas and hearing the phrase "Northern War of Aggression" to describe the Civil War. Censorship is never about cutting off information, it's only ever about cutting off information that the censors don't like. Given how openly hostile both AU and the US's governments are to progressive politics and worldviews, I am dubious that this isn't about controlling kids' access to a more open view of the world than their schools will give them.
- b00ty4breakfast 9mo ago
  I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm still unconvinced. I think it is a very obvious backdoor to forcing online ID without having to call it an ID law.
  - ang_cire 9mo ago
    I think you and I are on the same side of this particular argument.
- bamboozled 9mo ago
  The Australian government isn’t banning books. It’s banning access to harmful content for people under 16. One morning I logged into Reddit and saw a video of Charlie Kirk get his head blown off. I didn’t want to see that, but for some reason it wasn’t taken down yet. I’m really glad my 12 year old daughter didn’t have to see that…

papichulo4 9mo ago

Why does the motivation matter so much? It’s not a global ban, it’s not a permanent ban, nobody is going to jail. It’s like seeing if moving the smoking age to 18 will improve health outcomes. It’s ruining their lives as far as we can tell, and at the end of the day it’s just one country testing it out. It’ll be stastically significant, culturally close enough of a sample set for us to learn from. I’m curious to see what the 1-2-3 year effects are. We need to let some real life experimentation happen, somewhere, instead of accepting what every conglomerate wants. I get that “it’s easy to say” for me as someone completely unaffected by this law. The study that was posted last week regarding at school banning of phones was enlightening. It improved scores within two years after a bit of resistance. Boom! I want them to have a chance at being healthy and well-educated; we can’t stop teens from smoking altogether but we can sure limit their access by default.

bamboozled 9mo ago
Don’t you know this is the end of democracy as we know it because kids can’t easily look at toxic content online anymore ?

stevage 9mo ago

> We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions I have literally never heard this. The ban doesn't stop teens consuming social media content like tik tok. Your argument seems like quite a stretch.

swiftcoder 9mo ago
> The ban doesn't stop teens consuming social media content like tik tok. That is exactly what the ban aims to do? TikTok is literally listed in the article as one of the platforms ordered to ban access by under-16s
- XorNot 9mo ago
  The ban is on having an account. Tiktok video is publicly viewable.
  - swiftcoder 9mo ago
    > Tiktok video is publicly viewable Is it still publicly viewable without age verification in Australia? It's a little unclear from TFA whether the ban is purely on account creation, or also applies to viewing.
    - protocolture 9mo ago
      Yes. Ditto Youtube. And 4chan. It takes the completely ridiculous idea that harm is caused by having an account. Youtube even pointed out that, the lack of account means it cant work its algo magic to try and push age appropriate videos to users. Government doesnt care. No Account. No Problem. Ironically, youtube is now more likely to send kids andrew tate or russian propaganda to kids.
    - XorNot 9mo ago
      I'm in Australia on a phone without VPN and do not have a Tiktok account: googling "Tiktok" just now direct linked me to Tiktok's Web app and started auto playing. AFAIK this is strictly on having an account.

observationist 9mo ago

It's four horsemen of the infocalypse 101. Look at the platforms they allowed to continue - discord and roblox, the specific worst of all socials with the most predators, least effective countermeasures. The purpose of a thing is what it does. Australia's policies do not protect children. They quite brazenly and blatantly leave children vulnerable and exploited. The question of what those actions accomplish has a simple answer - narrative control, censorship, and weaponization of public discourse against dissent. The real solution to these problems are cultural. If you want the best outcomes for kids, then reinforce stable loving family environments, empower a culture of resilience and competence and capability, impose accountability for wrongdoing, negligence, and careless operation. If teachers and families are leaving kids vulnerable, the solution is better education and more information. None of the policy Australia crafted does anything good. It's just another power grab using "won't you think of the children?!" as the excuse. Next year it will be terrorism or drugs or money laundering, and they'll keep constricting around civil liberties until they have absolute control. They'll also put various racial and ethnic officials in prominent positions, so that you may not criticize anything lest you be deemed a racist or bigot (super effective social engineering.)

vablings 9mo ago
> The real solution to these problems are cultural. If you want the best outcomes for kids, then reinforce stable loving family environments, empower a culture of resilience and competence and capability, impose accountability for wrongdoing, negligence, and careless operation. If teachers and families are leaving kids vulnerable, the solution is better education and more information. This is just complete bullshit. Ah yes, my solution to this problem is just to require every single family to be infinitely better in every way imaginable. What is the proposal if that can't happen? We just execute people who don't meet the "stable loving family environment" No doubt in my mind you are from the generation of a stiff upper lip
- observationist 9mo ago
  You fix it with better culture. You don't throw away your principles and liberties because "bad things are happening to children, quick, burn the system down!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

chemotaxis 9mo ago

> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. I mean... you can say that about most of things in life. Behind every social movement or policy, it's always a mix of good faith, cynical fearmongering, and opportunism by people or organizations who stand to gain something from it. Does it matter? If you think that social media and smartphones are harmful to the youth, you (a) should probably be glad that someone is doing something decisive about it; and (b) you get a large-scale experiment that will hopefully prove or disprove that.

soulofmischief 9mo ago
This is an extremely unethical experiment.

patrickmcnamara 9mo ago

Non-American countries are also importing a lot of American politics. I'd rather that didn't happen and is alone worthy of curbing in my opinion.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

dalemhurley 9mo ago

Clearly this comment is propaganda. This bill had bipartisan support and the Labor government has a significant share of the young voters who are over 18.

bdangubic 9mo ago

unfortunately there is nothing we can do in any society without seeing comments like this… whatever “move” is done comments like this will be there with endless “analysis” about “motivation” for the move… it is what it is…

feb012025 9mo ago
The nature of democracy and open dialogue I suppose. But really, when banning a large portion of the population from social media, political motives should absolutely be entertained. Politics is inextricably related to social media in 2025
- bdangubic 9mo ago
  in 2025 politics is inextricably related to everything

clickety_clack 9mo ago

I think adults are barely able to take reasoned political positions in today’s online environment, but at least an adult has the experience to make the attempt. Exposing kids to the type of online political persuasion we have today means that we are exposing them to something they have not got the tools to navigate. They just get swept up into whatever the popular idea of the day happens to be. To me, the argument that separating kids from social media separates them from today’s political onslaught is one of the best arguments in favor of it.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

gary_0 9mo ago

This worldwide push for online ID verification is absolutely not in good faith, and I'm shocked at how few people on "Hacker" News are seeing it for what it is. Imagine going on 1990's or 2000's Usenet and telling those folks they'd have to upload government ID to prove they weren't children and keep using the system. Virtually everyone would have shouted this Big Brother shit down until it was their dying breath.

AnonymousPlanet 9mo ago
Parts of Usenet actually mandated real names. The idea was to make discussions more civilised. It didn't. And on top of that people were now subject to stalking and doxxing. I remember a poster who had a link to a defamation site in his signature. The site was targeted at another frequent poster in that newsgroup, detailing his address and his alleged intellectual failings.
serial_dev 9mo ago
But think of the children! Or the terrorist! Or communists! Whichever makes you accept the surveillance state.
- gary_0 9mo ago
  The nanny-state control freaks used "think of the children" so often over the years that it became a meme, and yet here we are. What a workhorse!
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
bamboozled 9mo ago
America had all the access to free information and voted in an authoritarian anyway so what’s it matter ? I don’t care anymore about this emotive argument that you’re putting forward. The government knows everything about you because you pay for internet. Maybe you pretend to yourself you’re someone anonymous because you use a VPN but if they want to know who you are, they know. At least maybe this ban will stop some of the idiocy bleeding into the next generation.

XorNot 9mo ago

The policy has like 70% popular support. "What are they really doing?" is a stupid conspiracy brained question: trying to win the next election obviously and whatever you may think, representing the electorate. (I hate the policy personally)

lo_zamoyski 9mo ago

Asking "cui bono?" is always a sound question to ask in a political or commercial context, but it should not be the only one. Don't fall prey to appeal to motive. Even if the motivation is self-serving, it need not be bad per se.

ricardobeat 9mo ago

> Rahm Emanuel is campaigning for the same thing in America. I get the sense this is supposed to signify something; don't know the name, but looking at their profile, great career, Obama's chief of staff. What's the implication?

roguecoder 9mo ago
He is a pro-authoritian-control Democrat, so it is unsurprising that he is more worried about control of information than he is the Constitution. His background is in finance and his political goal is generally management of the country by a monied elite without particular oversight. He was paid by Goldman Sachs to help Clinton get elected by raising massive amounts of money. During Obama's term he structured the DNC to be about his personal power rather than supporting Democrats across the country, costing Democrats the midterms. As mayor of Chicago he covered up a murder committed by a police officer and refused to comply with transparency laws. On the other hand, this particular position is probably just part of the Israeli campaign against TikTok: Emanuel volunteered for the IDF and has long been an anti-Palestinian activist.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

solumunus 9mo ago

I think not letting children get barraged with misinformation and foreign propaganda might help them.

pryce 9mo ago

The ingredients for this legislation trace back to an organisation called "Collective Shout"[1], by Melinda Tankard Reist, who readers may be aware of from their previous efforts to pressure Steam to restrict games with adult content I happen to think there are plenty of valid points regarding harmful content on steam and valid arguments about the harms of social media, but I do not believe Collective Shout is a benevolent actor in combatting those harms or steering the solutions, as their proposals nearly always deliver harmful effects on LGBTQ people - and this fits with Reist's previous work[2], eg under Sen. Harradine [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Shout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Shout [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist

msuniverse2026 9mo ago
That is just a thought-stopping reference. Why does this literal nobody who nobody has to listen to have the total backing of both major political parties? That is the real question and it obviously goes back to narrative control and the move from democracy to an authoritarian managerial state.
- pryce 9mo ago
  moral panics are useful for creating authoritarian states. If a moral panic is not presently available, in 2025 it may be easier it's ever been before to cultivate one.
Nursie 9mo ago
My favourite micro pressure-group in Australia is the Pedestrian Council of Australia. Whenever there's talk about car safety measures, e-scooters or anything else, the press goes to the official-sounding "Pedestrian Council of Australia" for comment. And obligingly, Harold Scruby who is the CEO, Chairman and entire membership of said council will hold forth. He's been spectacularly successful at getting himself listened to, as if he represented something. Collective shout are just as illegitimate.
- 9mo ago

immibis 9mo ago

¿Por que no los dos? Current social media is terrible for children (and everyone, but we let adults drink and smoke) - this is known. They've been told many times they need to change or they'll get banned. They have not. This is known. It reminds me a little of when Australia banned Amazon because Amazon refused to charge GST (their version of VAT or sales tax). The surveillance part is about adults having to upload their identity. This concern is entirely separate from the part where children are banned.

endgame 9mo ago

Of course they aren't. If they were actually helping kids, they would be going after algorithmic feeds in general and the most predatory platforms like Roblox (especially given its recent scandals), doing something about kids being exposed to gambling advertising, etc. The bill was put up for public comment for less than one business day before being rammed through Parliament. Australia is just sending out one of the horsemen of the infocalypse so that other countries have an excuse to follow suit. Like how our "Assistance And Access" Act was a test run of the UK's "snooper's charter". This law will just lead to: 1. kids pretending to be adults so they sneak through these filters 2. platforms winding back their (meagre) child safety efforts since "children are banned anyway" 3. everyone being forced to prove their age via e.g. uploading ID (which will inevitably get leaked)

palata 9mo ago
> kids pretending to be adults so they sneak through these filters The real question is: how hard does it make it for them to pretend to be adults? We just need it to be hard enough that most kids won't do it. > platforms winding back their (meagre) child safety efforts since "children are banned anyway" If the law forces the platforms to properly ban children, I don't see how they can do that. If you're thinking that the platforms will just say "it's illegal for children to join, so we don't have to do anything because they shouldn't come in the first place", then I don't think the law is made like this. > everyone being forced to prove their age via e.g. uploading ID (which will inevitably get leaked) Some countries have been working on privacy-preserving age verification. I find it's a lot better than uploading an ID.
- Animats 9mo ago
  > We just need it to be hard enough that most kids won't do it. Silly though that sounds, it might work. Because it's social pressure from other kids to be online that drives many kids into being constantly on Instagram and Snapchat. If you're not online, you don't know what's going on. The big social networks monetize FOMO. If a sizable fraction of kids aren't on social media, that's not where it's happening any more. The pressure goes away. Or goes elsewhere.

dmitrygr 9mo ago

The enemy (AUS) of my enemy (social media's effect on kids) is my friend (this ban). Their motivation is only mildly interesting.

tiew9Vii 9mo ago

Australia is a huge contradiction. “Kids” are no longer old enough to use social media as they are “kids”. At the same time Australia states are updating laws believing “kids” are old enough to be treated as and tried as adults in a court of law.

girvo 9mo ago
Indeed. We will stick them in prison, but they can’t use social media. It’s a farce.
NoPicklez 9mo ago
How is that a contradiction? Its not uncommon for laws that allow for teenagers (14 or above) to be tried as adults for more serious crimes. Should we prevent kids from doing things we think will harm them? Yes, should we give harsher penalties for kids who commit more serious crimes? Potentially.

nextstep 9mo ago

I don’t think the US will ever enact a similar ban. The power to shape young minds is too great, even if these service also increase suicides in children to some degree. The same algorithms that showed IDF war crimes compilations and turned a generation against Israel can be reshaped to push a different, right-wing narrative. The David Ellison’s of the world have too much power to allow regulation getting in the way of this.

jimbokun 9mo ago

TikTok is not going to make kids better informed about foreign policy.

giancarlostoro 9mo ago

> I don't believe they're overly concerned with "helping the kids" unfortunately We don't need laws for most things, and yet we've built ourselves a society where everything is a law.

jstummbillig 9mo ago

> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. Really! My experience is quite the opposite. I see a lot of people explaining why it's a bad idea.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

xedrac 9mo ago

Both can be true. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the consequences? I'm of the opinion that parents need to help regulate teen exposure, not the government. It does feel a bit like censorship.

epolanski 9mo ago

> We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, etc... What's the alternative? Going back to TV lying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that in Libya there's a genuine rebellion against Gaddafi? I'd rather have multiple actors fighting to push their views on social to be honest. I also don't like how quick is social media to jump on labelling anybody with a different opinion as a troll or a bot. This is especially common on Reddit where basically every single subreddit is heavily biased in some direction, heavily moderated to push some views and some views only. Instead, what we should teach in school is how to treat news (any news really, even your friend telling you he's got a Playstation 7 but he can't show it to you): questioning it, verifying the sources, questioning the possible motives and biases of the source. I'll be frank: I didn't mind Russia pushing their own news through channels like Russia Today globally. I always thought it was very important to get the views of the other side. But my view also requires my (normal to me) attitude: question, question, question, verify. Problem is: it's hard, it's exhausting. Claiming something false takes 5 seconds, debunking it can take hours. Most people already got their problems, and just don't do any of it.

multiplegeorges 9mo ago

> they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions It's well known that foreign actors are all over social and that the west's foreign policy is (rightly so!) hostile to them.

aus_throwaway 9mo ago

The Australian government didn’t do this because of any concern about children; it’s to punish (mainly) Meta for backing out of the Australian Social Media Bargaining Agreement [1]. Other social media companies are collateral damage. News Corp wanted Meta et al to pay for the privilege of sharing links to News Corp articles (imo, ridiculous). Meta played along for a short period, but has now refused to engage, which has clearly upset News Corp (and their shrinking top line). It’s slowly changing, but it’s an unfortunate truth that News Corp still has incredible influence over Australian politicians, hence this had bipartisan support. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/12/meta-could-face-millions-in-fines-for-not-signing-content-deals-in-australia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/12/meta-coul...

stephen_g 9mo ago
Just in case anyone is sceptical, is quite literally paying for sharing links - the legslation [1] says in part 52B that For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content available if: (a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service; or (b) a link to the content is provided on the service; or (c) an extract of the content is provided on the service. (2) Subsection (1) does not limit, for the purposes of this Part, the ways in which a service makes content available. Part 52B (1) means that the code explicitly defines that a social media site publishing a user post containing a link to a news site as being considered exactly the same as the social media site ripping off and publishing a copy of a whole article! The supporters of the bill then went around pretending that social media sites were ripping off whole articles and showing them on their sites with their own ads, when they are actually just linking and showing the title, thumbnail and sentence summary that the news site provides in its meta info! In the end, the news media bargaining code is effectively just a shakedown to extract money for nothing from tech companies. Part 52B makes the whole thing indefensible. 1. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00021/latest/text https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00021/latest/text

rstuart4133 9mo ago

> I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization. Most Australian schools banned phones a while ago. Attempts were made to measure the outcome. For example, South Australia saw a 72% drop in phone-related issues and 80.5% fall in social media problems in early 2025 compared to 2023 [0]. Other states reported similar results. These early figures are a little rubbery, but overall look very good. The social media ban is in part a response to that success. The only major concern I have is de-anonymization of the web. It's worse than just de-anonymization. They've opened the gate for organisations like Facebook to demand government ID, like say a photo of a drivers licence. It contains a whole pile of info these data vultures would like to get their hands on, like your actual date of birth and residential address. The sad bit is I doubt de-anonymization was goal, in fact I doubt they put much thought into that aspect of all. If it was the goal there far more effective ways of going about given the corporations permission to "collect whatever data you need to make it work". They could have implemented a zero knowledge proof of age service. But given the track record of their other computer projects, a realistic assessment is it had near zero chance of being implemented at all, let alone on time and on budget. But if they had of insisted the providers implemented some sort of ZKP themselves, I would have found it hard to argue against given the past experience in schools. [0] https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/school-behaviour-improving-after-mobile-phone-ban-and-vaping-reforms https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/school-behaviour-im...

protocolture 9mo ago
Is that the same report that failed to mention they changed the testing methodology for the year after the phone ban, and that an improvement was expected in SA test scores regardless?
makeitdouble 9mo ago
The report title > School behaviour improving after mobile phone ban and vaping reforms Vaping !? If we're discussing effect of phone bans at school, I think looking at a period where nicotine addiction was also strongly reduced makes the numbers pretty hard to interpret.

energy123 9mo ago

70-74% of voters in Australia and the UK want this. It's also a bipartisan legislation. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy among politicians. It's not just about the kids either. People know those kids are going to grown up and impact them one day. An avalanche of broken people is not conducive to what I want on a purely selfish level as a non-parent.

stephen_g 9mo ago

Yes, specifically Australian Labor hate social media because while they are to the left of the overton window here, in reality they are a centre-right party pretending to be progressive. But social media is where the actual progressive people congregate. This social media campaign though I believe actually came from a campaign by the newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Labor are always trying to placate News Corp media, and News Corp media still blatantly tell their readers not to vote for Labor. It hasn't worked for decades, but Labor seem to believe that one of these days it will be different (it won't). So politically it ticks some boxes for them, helps them suck up to the newspapers that will always hate them, helps diminish social media spaces where their opponents (actual progressives) congregate, and generally demonising "big tech" does just play well politically here.

pokstad 9mo ago

As someone with kids, I’m really surprised to hear this. I viciously keep my kids off social media. There’s no political connection. It’s a safety and mental health concern.

NothingAboutAny 9mo ago

[dead]

morshu9001 9mo ago

Yep, ADL and others publicly supported the US TikTok forced-sale specifically because of Israel, including the bill sponsors.

protocolture 9mo ago

Seems like they were particularly angry with our 6 News Aus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_News_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_News_Australia Where kids were reporting on and educating each other about news and politics.

Nursie 9mo ago

What "they" want is secondary - it's a pretty popular move here in Australia, it's what people largely want. Labor have been failing at giving people what they want recently, and are generally considered rather lacklustre and weak. But like the vaping ban (which was predicted to be and has now been confirmed to be a backward step), this is something parents are generally happy about. No conspiracy needed.