geteilt von: https://lemmy.zip/post/53982034
High Court challenge says law imposing ban is ‘grossly excessive’ and infringes on ‘constitutional right of freedom of political communication’
geteilt von: https://lemmy.zip/post/53982034
High Court challenge says law imposing ban is ‘grossly excessive’ and infringes on ‘constitutional right of freedom of political communication’
Good on em, parents should be regulating internet access and not the govt
They won’t.
They shouldn’t need to.
They will still need to under the current form of the social media ban.
Should they?
Does that include single parents? Overworked parents? Parents who don’t understand/use the internet? Do you believe that all children follow their parents’ rules when they step out of the door of their houses?
Make an actual argument for young children having social media access.
Govt could extremely easily release a product for parents, with or without NBN involvement, that helps control internet for kids. They don’t and instead impact everyone with this bullshit
Those are not acceptable reasons for poor parenting. Don’t move the goal posts.
You didn’t answer any of my questions.
The very children who are at risk are the ones with the type of families I listed, and other at risk types. If you leave it up to the parents, you’re essentially giving up on kids with “bad” parents.
I’ll ask a different way: if you’re a child and you have parents who don’t understand the issue, or are too busy and/or stressed out to monitor the issue, or if you have friends who provide you with access…do you deserve to be out at risk/fall through the cracks?
If you actually want to solve problems…you work together as a society…you raise children as a village. If you want all the problems associated with social media use and other issues you “leave it to the parents”, which is basically giving up.
Parents who neglect their children have their children removed. There are no excuses for bad parenting, there are plenty of resources to understand what “the internet” is. Seriously?
This is not a real argument. I’ve presented alternatives and you’ve ignored them. You raise strawmen and move goal posts. There are non police state alternatives. You’re arguing in bad faith and I will not engage with you further
You’re just talking past me and not engaging with what I’m saying. All I’m saying is the reality of life for some families is that a kid shouldn’t be put at risk because their single mom (for example) is too busy or doesn’t want to die on the hill of not letting their kid talk to their friends on Discord or whatever.
Taking her kid away isn’t going to help the kid…or anyone…you’re just going to create more problems.
The other commenter isn’t making strawman arguments, they made quite clear the complex situations in which a parent may not be in a position to monitor or control their childs use.
This is a strawman. It fails to imagine neglect of varied levels. It fails to acknowledge that child removal is the last resort after sustained and/or heavy neglect.
The alternative, you presented one that i see, is a government solution imposed from on high that is liable to the same ‘police state’ attacks you make about this legislation, or, will go unenforced and thus be a giant waste of time and energy because all parents, especially those time poor or ‘not in the know’, ignore the tool.
Yes but parents aren’t doing that so…
That’s their parenting right
Social media is not the internet.
Social media is a privatized mass-spying and manipulation tool that directly and intentionally destroys the mental health of its users.
Are you aware of Labor’s 2009 plan to censor the entire Australian internet? It didn’t succeed back then thankfully.
There is no way that they will stop at just the big social media platforms.
This is about control and further removal of being anonymous.
It’s not even a liberal vs labor thing. They both have a history of bipartisan support for this type of bullshit. See: metadata retention, assistance and access, identify and disrupt laws.
In late December you’ll need photo ID to search google so it kinda is about the internet
Please don’t spread misinformation.
Under 16’s can still access websites like YouTube and Google but will not be able to interact (i.e liking videos) and comment on content. They will still be able to view videos and publicly shared content.
On the 27th of December a separate set of restrictions kick in
https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2025/australians-to-face-age-checks-from-search-engines.html
And yet in your own article it can be quoted:
“Search engines will not be required to implement age assurance measures for users who are not logged in to their services, according to the new rules.”
So I fail to see how you will be unable to use Google.
Google cracks the shits if you use a vpn, you think they will accept users logging out en masse?
A few things. Firstly, I don’t know how VPN usage has come into this discussion as I haven’t made mention of VPN usage. Secondly, I’ve just not had the same experience. I use a VPN for all my devices and have never had a single issue using Google and it’s services both with and without an account so it could be an issue on your end.
You will eventually want to access a page or service and will be asked to upload an id and or scan your face to make sure it matches. I for one do not want to have to submit my private information in order to use the internet.
But the paremts aren’t doing shit, it’s why the Governments stepping in.
Right… It’s time to admit people and our governments are both fucked.
People have always been fucked, we don’t need a bloody police state just because some people let their kids use the internet