Australian Senate, last sitting of the year. No idea when the Social Media Ban debate is kicking off.
If anyone’s keen, feel free to give a live run-down of anything interesting in this thread.
(sorry about all the edits, just trying to get a decent thumbnail: 
)
We should ban u16s from public transport. Too many have had fatal accidents due to dangerous behaviour around railways and bus stops. Compulsory learning from home, now!
If you think that’s a solid argument or one based in logic, good news. You’d probably make for an ideal liberal senator.
Satire, I thought it was obvious.
Welp went over my head, my bad, imma blame it on Poe’s law or somethingsatirical but critical of the bill my point stands.Well, I generally don’t consider satire to be a solid argument, it usuallp consisting of a joke and all. But if it makes people think, I’d consider it a win.
This bill is clearly not an effective solution for the stated problem. If you think it is, you’d probably make a good liberal senator.
Yes, @[email protected] was being critical of the Bill. Because it’s about as well thought-out as their satirical banning of children on public transport.
I see a lot of people parroting surface level points provided by those in opposition to the bill but little addressing it. Especially the “social credit” nonsense. As mentioned in the debate digital ID wouldn’t be the only means for these social media companies to verify users. Though I agree that how it’s been rushed through is inappropriate.
All good
deleted by creator
“Comrade! Papers! NOW!”
I remember when we used to be horrified at some of the terrible regimes and their draconian requirements and powers.
And yet, here we are happily strolling into the same situation.
I don’t see how the communist remark is relevant. Social media has proliferated largely unchecked. They are potentially damaging platforms, especially for younger people. That’s ignoring the rampant misinformation. I mean have a look at X and the “your body my choice” nonsense. I’m surprised people are genuinely advocating for the multimillion dollar corporations being in charge rather than our government.
It’s a wild overstep peddled in the name of “think of the children!!”
As any 12 year old with a porno mag will tell you, kids will get around this without even blinking. And the fun fact is that I, a grown arse adult three times their “acceptable” age to fuck around with the dangerous social media will coincidentally be asked to prove my age, full name, address to any comment I may make online and boy oh boy wait until I say something that disagrees with the obsidian order.
This comment right here. Not a fan of this bill at all and may potentially leave any platform that demands this information and/or ‘digital id’.
Moving countries here. just gonna post on this instance for nostalgia
For real? Hyperbole? Or vpn joke
Not OP, but this garbage solidified my decision that I wish to move countries sometime soon. I think the EU’s done a good job at regulating corporations while also not making such over the top decisions, and generally respecting democratic processes when they do make heavy handed decisions
If I had better earning potential I probably would have absconded to Europe
The GDPR has been completely ineffective.
Instead of preventing immoral businesses from collecting our data, it has forced moral and immoral businesses to make their websites completely useless unless we give them explicit permission to collect our data. We get that stupid, ineffectual modal pop up whenever we visit their site, and no matter how many permissions we give them, they are forced to ask every time.
The thing is All-The-Countries are just as bad (if not worse).
At least we have preferential voting in Australia so (if we can educate our idiotic fellow voters) we have a (theoretical) chance to vote both major parties out.
Wasn’t the digital ID addressed in the debate? It seems the main refutations are “it won’t fix everything immediately” and “digital ID will be enforced for everyone”. The only valid complaints I’ve heard are about digital ID which is only one of the way the government will require these companies to verify if I’ve understood the debate. I think “a small portion will work around it” is a weak excuse to avoid dealing what has been a big problem practically since the inception of social media.
The social media problem is a media literacy problem. You don’t teach media literacy by shielding children from media. It’s a legislative band-aid in lieu of a solution that we can’t be assed to implement.
Nevermind that the purported exemption for Youtube, presumably on the basis that Youtube is useful, is not objective.Tiktok and other platforms have equal potential for usefulness - and if you don’t think so, I’d challenge you to explain why?
The proper comment is here but I’ll quote.
“In the future we are going to look back on seeing children use iPads that directly connect them to the most sophisticated engagement and manipulation algorithms ever as something as horrid as a child smoking a cigarette, or doing any other drug”
Are you aware of dark patterns? How’re they’re all through websites and games now? To the extent that AI now inadvertently writes websites to include because practically all data their trainings are polluted with them? Simply “educating” people out of what amounts to nearly hostile platforms and algorithms is ludicrous. I get a lot of the criticism for the bill I do. People try to pin this as people crying “think about children” and “just let parents work it out” are woefully misinformed and parent have been failing for decades now.
It’s pretty bad, but the hyperbole comparison to a global leading cause of premature death is a bit over the top. Besides, as I previously addressed: this legislation will not solve the problem, neither by its intent or practical application.
The Luddites had good points, but ultimately the species continues marching forward and is better off for it.
Misinformation and snake oil salesmen have been issues since we invented society. This is the new iteration of it. Decrying it as the new biggest bad no one has ever seen before that must be slain is an absolute copout.
‘They will get around it’ - how is that a weak argument? I can guarantee you it will not be a small portion. The entire purported point of this is to ‘protect’ children from being exposed. If they’re not protected whats the point? Why do this? To make yourself feel better and performative? That’s the same fuckin’ cancer in a new hat
As others have pointed out, the issue is media literacy, a blanket ban won’t resolve that. And what good will unleashing a bunch of uneducated and unexposed sixteen year olds on reddit do anyway? We’ll still have the same damned issue, only with older people. Hell, my in laws got sucked into the conspiracy cooker shit and they’re hitting 70.
SM is attractive as it’s a wider society to play in. The bad faith actors attract and prey on people who are receptive due to issues outside of SM, actual rl societal issues and banning kids will just add a delicious slip of forbidden fruit to the fuckers.
The proper comment is here but I’ll quote.
“In the future we are going to look back on seeing children use iPads that directly connect them to the most sophisticated engagement and manipulation algorithms ever as something as horrid as a child smoking a cigarette, or doing any other drug”
Are you aware of dark patterns? How’re they’re all through websites and games now? To the extent that AI now inadvertently writes websites to include because practically all data their trainings are polluted with them? Simply “educating” people out of what amounts to nearly hostile platforms and algorithms is ludicrous. I get a lot of the criticism for the bill I do. People try to pin this as people crying “think about children” and “just let parents work it out” are woefully misinformed and parent have been failing for decades now.
I also thinks it worth noting that the senators in opposition (and unsurprisingly now commenter) all seems to be using highly emotive language to criticise the bill. A lot of reducto ad absurdum going on as well (like 3 comments I’ve seen so far with “think of the children” nonsense). Frankly pretty telling.
I think you’re rather missing the point.
Yes, we have dark patterns, we have algorithms subtly coded and designed to drive us towards desired outcomes. These are the problems, and hitting the age of 16 won’t make them go away. It won’t make you less susceptible. That’s explicitly why I referred to my inlaws falling down the batshit rabbit hole. There is no immunity from this
If you actually want to tackle the issue, you educate and you punish the behaviour. This utter crap of legislation does nothing to address the issue.
We’re in danger of a domino effect happening across the planet where governments finally have the de facto authorization to scour youth and youth culture off the web. For millions this is the loss of a right to access they had assumed from birth. Any argument that applies to children browsing the web applies to adults, since we recurringly prove we’re not better decision makers than children.
In my country the elite are pedophiles who want to marry children and allow them to be employed debt trapping them and then forcing them into a financial corner. Our highest lawman was nearly an actual known child sex trafficker but his appointment would have sparked a World War III like series of disclosures and open blackmailing because there are now too many pedophiles running the government to effecticely threaten each other.
There is a type of common sexual deviancy inspired by eastern cartoons that fetishizes the undeveloped body. It is commonly defended by its connosieurs as valid art from a superior enlightened culture. There is a throughline of normalization of child marriage and relationship forming that is slowly being legitimized and trust me it was already legal in half my country to marry children, but not acceptable.
Meanwhile childrens identities are making them targets in school hallways, bathrooms, and gymnasiums. The ramifications of the social world order bear down on them without their consent or understanding. Fascism splits up children into tribal groups and targettable minorities just the same as adults.
Darkest of all is the future promise of more children disappearing into a black hole. Closed borders where only ICE and men like Matt Gaetz and the late great Epstein have the power to move through unabbated. In Trump’s first administration they told us to our faces they lost 1,488 children. 1,488 necessary victims of border policy. They lost more than that, 1,488 if you don’t know, is a Nazi dogwhistle referring to the 14 words and then signalling allegience to Adolph Hitler. They told us to our face they threw fifteen hundred children down a well. Where are they now?
Who benefits ultimately from controlling what children see and think? Who benefits from being able to silence them? Who benefits from being able speak for children?
Children’s rights and liberties are a flashpoint in our civilizations understanding, worship, and secret contempt for the concept of natural and civil rights. When they’re shoved off the net another much more easily targettable adult minority will be next.
But that’s the problem, this bill does absolutely nothing to rectify that. They could try and hold the companies to account (good luck with Elon on Trumps team), or even better, they could snap back to reality and actually look at educating kids how to navigate and use these online spaces.
Do you think that kids at 16, suddenly getting access with no prior experience or knowledge of how the systems work will be better?
- We have existing regulation about media and who can watch it, we should update this and apply it as well as we can to new technologies.
- Children should be taught how to verify information and utilise online spaces healthily, like it or not, these spaces will be around in some form.
- Parents should be taught how to work with their children and should be held accountable, same as if i let my 13 yr old go to an R rated movie.
There are much worse places than instagram and tiktok, that won’t be following any government recommendations. This bill does nothing but enhance the surveillance state, as everyone will be required to verify their identity, what the government is really doing is fighting online anonymity, but please just think of those poor little kids.
I agree with all your criticism of social media, I hate it (this is the only platform I am on) but if they pass this bill, social media will still be round, fucking up the world, just the same.
Question; Would you rather incompetent public servants retaining one set of your personal data or multiple commercial interests collecting your personal data?
Except in the case of a data breach, your information is much more secure with The Government as long as they are kept accountable.
Unfortunately the Shit Party and the Shit Lite Party appear to be doing everything they can to prove that government is not accountable, (except for their “Lobbyists”).
Call of duty lobbies mentioned in senate. What a time to be alive lmao
Yes, and rightly so. Because this bill is so immensely stupid and the process by which it has been enacted so deeply undemocratic, that even a moron like Canavan (or was it Antic?) can see that the way they’ve carved out exemptions is haphazard and poorly thought through.
34 yes 19 no
mark the names of the dumb cunts that yes’d
Most of the Coalition. All of Labor. None of the cross-bench.
Not a surprise that all of Labor voted yes, given their party policy around caucus solidarity. I’d be interested to see a list of people opposed to this bill behind closed doors.
I’ve really come to despise Labor’s policy of not crossing the floor. I get their desire to show a united front, but it really makes it hard for regular folk to track how the party is shifting if we don’t ever see who supports what on an individual level.
None of the cross-bench
None of the cross-bench in the Senate. But 4 of the independent MPs.
Cool. I was referring to last night’s Senate vote that passed 34-19.
Is lemmy exempt I wonder?
The relevant Minister will be able to give exemptions as needed, but unfortunately there is no threshold for any sort of minimum size requirement or for non-profit community groups. So we would probably, to be completely lawful, need to get chummy with some politicians who can reach out to the Minister and seek an exemption.
(But realistically, we’re probably small enough that nobody would notice.)
it’s seriously annoying as fuck how there’s no exemption for any of these internet regulations based on size, all it it seriously achieves is strengthening corpos and depowering individuals with souls
The info is still really vague but seemed to so far apply to big platforms like reddit and facebook and X - however my info might be outdated by now.
Then again it could be that the fines for non compliance and verification charges might also apply to smaller platforms with less available funding than the big companies, and push them under.
The info I’ve been reading seems to be inconsistent and sometimes even conflict. And yeah, could be outdated by now
Why does Labor always do this? Instead of concentrating on good social policy and undoing some of the pro-corporation crap the Liberals have snuck in, they come up with some utter stupidity about the internet and end up dying on that hill.
Internet filter repeat incoming. This will be their undoing next election.
Faaark, I’m agreeing with Malcolm Roberts!
Too many kids die over this shit. The corpos have had, what, 15 years (?) to sort this shit out.
So now we see the heavy handed government regulation coming along. That’s what happens.
i guess that’s true but the system totally shouldn’t function that way at all, group punishment is removeded.
we pay these dumbasses to run our government for us, shouldn’t we be holding them accountable when they do dumb shit like this, rather than just accepting it as how the real world is?
Have mega corporations like Facebook/meta and Twitter/x been held accountable? Because they’ve resulted in kids killing themselves or developing psychological disorders.
What I’m not seeing is the backlash against those.
Fuck our useless government. Incompetent like most. But I’m so sick of the corpos getting a little bit of outrage and then not only do people move on in short order, but they keep using their platform and generating profit for them.
Come to Darwin where because there are people who get drunk and do stupid shit and get banned from buying alcohol, we are all punished and must present I.D every time we purchase takeaway alcohol.
Governments love group punishment because it’s easiest to implement.
Is it a requirement to merely “present” I.D. or are the details of the I.D. also recorded at the POS?
The place it in a machine and it is scanned and compared to a data base.
This came into effect 10 years or so ago.
Now they’re looking to record amounts you buy too because some places allow one bottle or carton per person per day
@Aussiemandeus
Thanks!That’s madness. If I had to live in the NT again, I’d make sure I went into a different bottle shop every day, take about $200 worth of whatever up to the counter, and then walk out, leaving the drinks behind and taking my cash with me.
But you could be sure my home brew would never run out.
See and that’s the crux of the entire problem.
The banned drinkers register didn’t stop any of the shit they said It would.
I could go down the street now and find people drinking grog under the tree out the front of a corner shop now
So now we all have to hand over ID to the government which will link our real identities to our online activity?
And that’s a good idea you think?
Are you sure you can’t imagine a scenario where that might be an issue?
Actually, don’t worry. Government databases never get hacked, and politicians never deceive the populace for nefarious purposes.
🙄
What about “heavy handed” makes you think I thought this was a good idea?
I have warned about this. Access to online services will soon be locked behind your mygov id.
These plans have been in motion for a long time.
Games are explicitly excluded from this law.
Which is kinda fucking ridiculous, as pointed out in debate, because in-game chat is often some of the most toxic you’ll encounter.
tbh I’m more concerned about kids on cod or battle.net than insta chat (research has found a lot of kids using Instagram for absurd numbers of hours are actually just chatting).
In Labor’s defense (as loath as I am to defend them for this), many parents seem to be concerned less with the content of the messages than with the amount of time their children are spending obsessing over it. Which is much harder for them to control on a phone app than in-game console chat.
Still a parenting issue IMO and not a matter for the legislature.
It’s a moral panic. When I was a kid sitting close to the TV would make you blind.
I hate this dodgy piece of legislation. I want socmed regulated to hell, like no non-curated recommendations that aren’t transparent filters like ‘new’ or ‘top votes’, full responsibility as a publisher for the content of messages etc. I just don’t see how a slapshod reactionary ban is going to do much useful for society broadly.
I feel like the platforms will remain just as addictive and cruel, kids will just start using them later, kids will get around bans to use unregulated removed sites, and people will wash their hands of understanding the actually nuanced problem of kids and screen time.
Meanwhile the police state expands. Cool and good.
full responsibility as a publisher for the content of messages
We really don’t want this. America’s Section 230 is a really good legal framework, and it’s very important. Because if you didn’t have that sort of protection, it would become almost impossible for smaller competitors to enter the market. The likes of Facebook and Twitter should be made more liable than they are for misinformation that survives even after being reported—and for continuing to host individuals who have repeatedly been seen sharing disinformation. But as a default assumption, platforms should not be liable for content users shared. Unless your goal is to kill off all platforms that aren’t already big enough to easily comply.
Why do you want more social media companies? Ideally the industry is regulated out of existence, at least in its current form.
What social good is served should not be in the hands of companies mining data and advertising. Forums, self hosted federated systems, and chat rooms were/are all vastly superior in terms of social good:harm ratio.
Making it completely unprofitable and impossible to comply with under current mass signup sell ads models would be the point.
Debate’s kicked off.
