Australia bans social media for U16 kids

[Wookie]

Is this police state tactics? Does “papa” know best? Or is this a gross intrusion on freedom of expression?

[Hammer Smokin']

It's probably the greatest step a nation has taken in trying to fix their youth. Well done. 

Even if you can't police it, the message is still clear - and an important one to be delivered. 

 

[bredy387]

On the one hand, protecting younger kids from harmful stuff online seems like a good idea, but on the other, it feels like it’s going too far in controlling what they can do.

[99call]

52 minutes ago, Hammer Smokin' said:

It's probably the greatest step a nation has taken in trying to fix their youth. Well done. 

Even if you can't police it, the message is still clear - and an important one to be delivered. 

Yep. Kids need to be protected from having their privacy and options stolen from them before they are even aware they are a commodity.   Pretty much everyone I know now hates invasive profiling forms of social media, and have totally unplugged. 

It's naïve to think kids won't seek to access the internet like adults do, but it's not naïve to think huge tech bros should be held responsible as publishers.

It's a simple question of morality. Socially media bombarding 12 yr old girls with suicidal ideation is sub-human and repulsive. They should be held to account.    

With great power, comes great responsibility.

[Chibearsv]

44 minutes ago, Wookie said:

Is this police state tactics? Does “papa” know best? Or is this a gross intrusion on freedom of expression?

There was no “freedom of expression” for me until I turned 18 and moved out. I’d prefer that parenting handle this type of issue rather than government. 

[BoliDan]

39 minutes ago, 99call said:

Yep. Kids need to be protected from having their privacy and options stolen from them before they are even aware they are a commodity.   Pretty much everyone I know now hates invasive profiling forms of social media, and have totally unplugged. 

It's naïve to think kids won't seek to access the internet like adults do,  but it's not naive to think huge tech bros should be held responsible as publishers.

It's a simple question of morality. Socially media bombarding 12 yr old girls with suicidal idiation is sub-human and repulsive. They should be held to account.    

With great power, comes great responsibility.

They will seek access, and all "the cool kids" will have profiles making it more desirable and rebellion oriented, now they'll just be using fake names and will be out of supervision of their parents and schools. The information on how to make a fake account will be easily accessible.

[99call]

24 minutes ago, BoliDan said:

They will seek access, and all "the cool kids" will have profiles making it more desirable and rebellion oriented, now they'll just be using fake names and will be out of supervision of their parents and schools. The information on how to make a fake account will be easily accessible.

This is exactly why I've said the responsibility lies with the publisher.

If some freak was running around the town square showing kids horrific images, they would be tackled to the ground in seconds and battered. Well...Musk and Zuckerberg are the same...just much more dangerous.

They need to be held to account as publishers. And if fined, fined in the billions, not millions. It has to hurt in order to be effective.

 

[El Presidente]

Free VPN

Done. 🙄

What happens when little Mary from Melbourne uses Tunnel Bear to log in from the USA?  I mean, Ken can use Tunnel Bear, so it is amenable to your average 5 year old. 

I love solutions determined by middle aged white people to solve a problem involving a tech/social issue they do not understand. 

Still, at least a parent and/or school now has something to lean on. 

[Chas.Alpha]

I have been given moderator privileges on this forum. I cannot respond. 🙄

[99call]

11 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Tunnel Bear

Why do the solutions have to sound like increasingly f***ed up parts of the problem 😂 

[El Presidente]

13 minutes ago, 99call said:

Why do the solutions have to sound like increasingly f***ed up parts of the problem 😂 

We installed Tunnel Bear on Ken's computer so he could access FOH. Tunnel Bear is a free VPN. Ken is too cheap to pay $4.50 a month for a real VPN. 

 

Ken was having problems with his computer and as is normal, rang me in a rage. 

"Your F***king Bear is going wild in my computer!" 

I pictured this

 

In the end...as always...it came down to Ken's computer illiteracy. The Bear was innocent. 

 

[MagicalBikeRide]

I’ve always been convinced that the success of Red Bull could be contributed, at least in part, to the fact that is was desirable to U16’s because they were not allowed have it (in many countries).

[MrBirdman]

As I see it, we leave most decisions about kids to parents, but all agree there are some things that are enough of a societal issue that it makes sense to make that decision for them. We don't let kids smoke or drink. Social media research is still just getting started, but there is mounting evidence that it has a deleterious effect on mental health for kids. I am on the board of a nonprofit that works in child mental health, and our waiting list is months long. Is it all because of social media? Of course not. But I believe we should approach kids mental health much like we do their physical health, where we are open to banning them from harms.

Time will tell if this law ends up anything more than a dead letter. 

[Lamboinee]

I think its great that they banned kids from social media. I wish they would ban social media for all worthless adults in the US as well. 

How will they enforce the ban on children in the Australia? I read they will fine the social media companies. But I say they should put the parents in jail!!!

[Ciscojohansson]

I see this spreading to the rest of the western world. Here in Scandinavian there is talk of doing away with laptops in school and I think phones are already out in school in some areas. Sounds good to me.

[Li Bai]

Instead of enforcing such measures we probably should be trying to figure out how those monsters were created in the first place. Social media apps aren't all bad and there's no way to stop it now anyway, imho the solution has always been and will always be education.

[rabidraccoon]

Social media has only be good for me. As a kid I made friends on social media who I am still friends with today. My first relationship started when a girl who had seen me with my friends messaged me on social media and struck up a conversation. I learn a lot about the world through it and use it to keep in touch with friends who live around the world now and we reunite when we are in the same place together. I make sure to keep mine positive and interesting to me. When I go to my discover page, it's only things I am interested in (wildlife photography, cigars, science pages, maps, and interesting data pages). It does take same work to keep it that way though as the algorithms keep trying to worm in influencers, memes and such random garbage that is not worth my time or attention. I guess this is like giving people acetylene torches or something. One person could use it to weld metals and create something that is amazing for their house. Another person could use it to burn down the house and burn themselves along with it. It depends on if you control it or it controls you.

[Fuzz]

The "ban" is really just moving the age of access from 13 years old to 16 years old. If you are giving your child a mobile phone/laptop/tablet, locking it down with a parental lock should be standard. That would prevent them from downloading a VPN to bypass the Australian age minimum. If you as a parent are allowing your child unfiltered access to the internet, then you are a big part of the problem.

We already ban kids from using mobile phones in schools in NSW, and it is fairly successful and accepted by students.

[MrBirdman]

11 hours ago, Fuzz said:

We already ban kids from using mobile phones in schools in NSW, and it is fairly successful and accepted by students.

I am glad to hear that. I was a middle school teacher back when smart phones had just started becoming mainstream enough that kids were bringing them to school. Despite NYC having a no-phone policy, it was almost impossible to enforce because (like with most of the rules at that school) our principal and VPs didn't have any support system for teachers to confiscate them. That left you, the teacher, trying to get it from the student and then having to deal with their parent coming in demanding the phone back. I taught in a very poor neighborhood, so I understand parents concern about an expensive purchase. Nevertheless, that is a good example of why communication (and support) from the top is essential to getting these policies to work. I remember suggesting we build a phone cubby for kids who needed to bring them to school - so there was no excuse for having them to hand during class - and my assistant principle told me administration didn't feel like "babysitting phones", and it was my job to "convince" 7th graders not to use them in class. Because human beings that age are so easily swayed by rational pleading. 

Anyway, I see this as a similar situation. Many adults do not recognize how toxic social media can be, so expecting kids to do so is foolish. Trying to explain it to them is likely to be as successful as me explaining why a smartphone is bad for a student's education. Now you don't have to even debate it. As for VPNs, I will be curious to see if the government introduces rules regarding SM sites tracking VPN use. Lots of sites use a variety of techniques to detect VPNs - none are foolproof, but often effective enough to stop run-of-the-mill, free VPNs.

[MrBirdman]

On 11/30/2024 at 12:25 PM, rabidraccoon said:

Social media has only be good for me. As a kid I made friends on social media who I am still friends with today. My first relationship started when a girl who had seen me with my friends messaged me on social media and struck up a conversation. I learn a lot about the world through it and use it to keep in touch with friends who live around the world now and we reunite when we are in the same place together. I make sure to keep mine positive and interesting to me. When I go to my discover page, it's only things I am interested in (wildlife photography, cigars, science pages, maps, and interesting data pages). It does take same work to keep it that way though as the algorithms keep trying to worm in influencers, memes and such random garbage that is not worth my time or attention. I guess this is like giving people acetylene torches or something. One person could use it to weld metals and create something that is amazing for their house. Another person could use it to burn down the house and burn themselves along with it. It depends on if you control it or it controls you.

I sympathize with this - we've become societally more atomized and social media is a great way to connect with others. That's why no one is seriously discussing a more widespread ban. Yet now, most social media use is about consumption, not interaction. That is much truer today than in the early days of Facebook and Twitter, and it is noteworthy than most of Gen Z doesn't even have a Facebook account. They use Instagram or TikTok, which are heavily geared towards consumption. That's the whole point of the algorithm - to get you to consume more. The overwhelming majority of that content has little value, and much of it is unhealthy for kids.

Before social media, being an attractive kid meant you were more popular in school or whatever; class clowns who did ridiculous stunts got attention from classmates but the downsides in punishment, which you'd know of if it was a classmate, warded off others. Now, being very good looking isn't just a path to popularity but celebrity and money. Pulling dumb stunts can make you thousands of dollars overnight if they go viral, and who knows what happens afterwards because they certainly won't post it! This cannot be good for self-esteem. Also, cops I have talked to attribute much of the rise in carjacking during COVID to bored kids copycatting TikTok stunts, especially since they often came with explanations on hot-wiring old cars.

Social media can be useful, but we also can't romanticize it anymore. At this point, we know better. 

[Shakey]

17 hours ago, Fuzz said:

The "ban" is really just moving the age of access from 13 years old to 16 years old.

^ That is an important point. It's not "no ban" vs "ban", it is moving an age restriction 3 years from 13->16. 

[DikkeSigaar]

I would support a complete ban on all social media full stop. Well played Oz.