Will eevblog be banned in Australia for under 16's as well?

[Zero999]

It doesn't matter what adjective you put in front, a democrat will always be a democrat

Try staying on topic. Or at least bothering to read the post that you quoted.
"According to the prosecutor, Räsänen claims that immorality and child abuse are characteristics related to homosexuality."

What do you think is the main problem here, religion or political affiliation?

Please bother reading the post you quoted. Of course it's political affiliation, not religion.

A Christian democrat thinks that everybody is Christian even if we don't realize it yet, and has no answer but censorship to those who disagree.
An LGBQWERTY democrat thinks that everybody is LGBQWERTY even if we don't realize it yet, and has no answer but censorship to those who disagree.

A democrat will always be a democrat, that's what I said, that's what I meant, that's what it is.

A democrat will always be a megalomaniac narcissist.
A democrat will always assume everybody is like him.
A democrat will always be confused by those who aren't.
A democrat will always see enemies of democracy everywhere.
A democrat will always be paranoid, sad and miserable.

It doesn't matter if it's a Democratic Republic of Oppression and Despair or a Democratic Republic of Freedom and Happiness.
Recent events show beyond all doubt: democracy is the same everywhere.

I think you're confusing democrat with authoritarian. It's true that some democratic parties have a problem with authoritarianism, but it's not solely a democrat issue.

[coppice]

It doesn't matter what adjective you put in front, a democrat will always be a democrat

Try staying on topic. Or at least bothering to read the post that you quoted.
"According to the prosecutor, Räsänen claims that immorality and child abuse are characteristics related to homosexuality."

What do you think is the main problem here, religion or political affiliation?

Please bother reading the post you quoted. Of course it's political affiliation, not religion.

A Christian democrat thinks that everybody is Christian even if we don't realize it yet, and has no answer but censorship to those who disagree.
An LGBQWERTY democrat thinks that everybody is LGBQWERTY even if we don't realize it yet, and has no answer but censorship to those who disagree.

A democrat will always be a democrat, that's what I said, that's what I meant, that's what it is.

A democrat will always be a megalomaniac narcissist.
A democrat will always assume everybody is like him.
A democrat will always be confused by those who aren't.
A democrat will always see enemies of democracy everywhere.
A democrat will always be paranoid, sad and miserable.

It doesn't matter if it's a Democratic Republic of Oppression and Despair or a Democratic Republic of Freedom and Happiness.
Recent events show beyond all doubt: democracy is the same everywhere.

I think you're confusing democrat with authoritarian. It's true that some democratic parties have a problem with authoritarianism, but it's not solely a democrat issue.

I think he's confusing a democrat with someone affiliated with a party that put democrat in their name to throw people off the scent.

[Zero999]

It doesn't matter what adjective you put in front, a democrat will always be a democrat

Try staying on topic. Or at least bothering to read the post that you quoted.
"According to the prosecutor, Räsänen claims that immorality and child abuse are characteristics related to homosexuality."

What do you think is the main problem here, religion or political affiliation?

Please bother reading the post you quoted. Of course it's political affiliation, not religion.

A Christian democrat thinks that everybody is Christian even if we don't realize it yet, and has no answer but censorship to those who disagree.
An LGBQWERTY democrat thinks that everybody is LGBQWERTY even if we don't realize it yet, and has no answer but censorship to those who disagree.

A democrat will always be a democrat, that's what I said, that's what I meant, that's what it is.

A democrat will always be a megalomaniac narcissist.
A democrat will always assume everybody is like him.
A democrat will always be confused by those who aren't.
A democrat will always see enemies of democracy everywhere.
A democrat will always be paranoid, sad and miserable.

It doesn't matter if it's a Democratic Republic of Oppression and Despair or a Democratic Republic of Freedom and Happiness.
Recent events show beyond all doubt: democracy is the same everywhere.

I think you're confusing democrat with authoritarian. It's true that some democratic parties have a problem with authoritarianism, but it's not solely a democrat issue.

I think he's confusing a democrat with someone affiliated with a party that put democrat in their name to throw people off the scent.

It's quite common for parties to have names antithetical to their actions.

Labour: when everything they're doing is harming the working class.
Conservative: when they've not conserved anything.

Same for many countries.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea
United States
Democratic Republic of Congo.

I could go on.

[.RC.]

I've learned that if you asked people what they'd like to change, their wishes are utopistic and unrealistic.

I have noticed this a fair bit when it comes to the environment.

Heavily urban living person says.   "We must save the environment.  We need to shut down <insert some industry in a rural area that the destruction of will not affect them on any way here>.

Meanwhile they go living their life the same as always as what they demand does not affect them and they refuse to do anything that will negatively affect their way of life..  I am sure there is a word for that sort of person, other then the ones combining four letter words that I am thinking of.

[coppice]

ACTUALLY figuring out what public wants.

Funny thing is, you cannot do that by asking the public what it wants.

Let me explain.

I've learned that if you asked people what they'd like to change, their wishes are utopistic and unrealistic.  So, now I like to ask how they'd change things, what would they themselves do, if they were the Emperor for one day.

Duh. Anyone with a brain should have figured that out in childhood. That's why you need effective pollsters. The good ones can work out patterns of questions that can skirt around the real issue being analysed, and flush out a fairly real view of the person being questioned. Most often then use the same skills to get the answer the people paying want to hear.

Have you ever looked in one of these left wing forums, where someone asks what people's most left wing view might be. A large number of the responses are basically "I should have everything I want and not have to work for it". They seem oblivious to the fact they have equated being left wing with being a slave owner, since the stuff won't magically appear, even in a society with high levels of automation.

[Nominal Animal]

ACTUALLY figuring out what public wants.

Funny thing is, you cannot do that by asking the public what it wants.

Let me explain.

I've learned that if you asked people what they'd like to change, their wishes are utopistic and unrealistic.  So, now I like to ask how they'd change things, what would they themselves do, if they were the Emperor for one day.

Duh. Anyone with a brain should have figured that out in childhood.

No; anyone with social skills figure that out in childhood.  Just because I lack some social skills doesn't make me brainless.

But yes.  And indeed polling is complicated; it's easy to get the answers you expected/wanted, and difficult to find out the actual truths.

Have you ever looked in one of these left wing forums, where someone asks what people's most left wing view might be. A large number of the responses are basically "I should have everything I want and not have to work for it". They seem oblivious to the fact they have equated being left wing with being a slave owner, since the stuff won't magically appear, even in a society with high levels of automation.

Yes, I have, and have recognized that.

Even more common is confusing dislike and bad experiences with fear and phobias.  That causes discussions to devolve into dissing others as if they were defective, instead of discussing the actual matter –– on all sides of the political spectrum.

Most humans have difficulties in seeing things from others' perspectives.  This includes pollsters.  That leads to the kind of situation I mentioned with Räsänen, pushing legislation in the hopes of protecting themselves with it, but ending up being prosecuted under that same legislation when someone else gets to decide how to apply it.

In the early day of republics they were much more aware that laws can be misused, and were somewhat more careful.  Nowadays it seems our representatives value quantity over quality, the appearance of listening to the public over solving the problems the public is complaining about.  That leads to the kind of legislation we see in Finland/EU and Australia: loaded footguns galore.

[coppice]

In the early day of republics they were much more aware that laws can be misused, and were somewhat more careful.  Nowadays it seems our representatives value quantity over quality, the appearance of listening to the public over solving the problems the public is complaining about.  That leads to the kind of legislation we see in Finland/EU and Australia: loaded footguns galore.

'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said yesterday of health care reform legislation: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” '

We live in a time when politicians can say things like that, and not be promptly thrown out.

[MrMobodies]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o

Australia approves social media ban on under-16s
The ban will be enforced by the nation's internet regulator
Hannah Ritchie, BBC News, Sydney
Published 28 November 2024
Australia will ban children under 16 from using social media, after its parliament approved the world's strictest laws.

The ban, which will not take effect for at least 12 months, could see tech companies fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7m) if they don't comply.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the "harms" of social media, something many parent groups have echoed. But critics say questions over how the ban will work - and its impact on privacy and social connection - have been left unanswered. This is not the first attempt globally to restrict children's social media use, but the minimum age of 16 is the highest set by any country. Unlike other attempts, it also does not include exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent. Having passed the Senate by 34 votes to 19 late on Thursday, the bill returned to the House of Representatives where it passed early on Friday.

“We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs," Albanese told reporters afterwards. The legislation does not specify which platforms will be banned. Those decisions will be made later by Australia’s communications minister, who will seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner - an internet regulator that will enforce the rules. However the minister, Michelle Rowland, has said the ban will include Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and X. Gaming and messaging platforms are exempt, as are sites that can be accessed without an account, meaning YouTube, for instance, is likely to be spared.

The government says will it rely on some form of age-verification technology to implement the restrictions, and options will be tested in the coming months. The onus will be on the social media platforms to add these processes themselves. However digital researchers have warned there are no guarantees the unspecified technology - which could rely on biometrics or identity information - will work. Critics have also sought assurances that privacy will be protected. They have also warned that restrictions could easily be circumvented through tools like a VPN - which can disguise a user’s location and make them appear to be logging on from another country. Children who find ways to flout the rules will not face penalties, however.

Polling on the reforms, though limited, suggests it is supported by a majority of Australian parents and caregivers. "For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out," Amy Friedlander, who was among those lobbying for the ban, recently told the BBC. "We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of." But many experts say the ban is "too blunt an instrument" to effectively address the risks associated with social media use, and have warned it could end up pushing children into less regulated corners of the internet.

During a short consultation period before the bill passed, Google and Snap criticised the legislation for not providing more detail, and Meta said the bill would be "ineffective" and not meet its stated aim of making kids safer. In its submission, TikTok said the government’s definition of a social media platform was so "broad and unclear" that "almost every online service could fall within [it]". X questioned the "lawfulness" of the bill - saying it may not be compatible with international regulations and human rights treaties which Australia has signed.

Some youth advocates also accused the government of not fully understanding the role social media plays in their lives, and locking them out of the debate. "We understand we are vulnerable to the risks and negative impacts of social media… but we need to be involved in developing solutions," wrote the eSafety Youth Council, which advises the regulator. Albanese has acknowledged the debate is complex but steadfastly defended the bill."We don't argue that its implementation will be perfect, just like the alcohol ban for [children] under 18 doesn’t mean that someone under 18 never has access – but we know that it’s the right thing to do," he said on Friday.

Last year, France introduced legislation to block social media access for children under 15 without parental consent, though research indicates almost half of users were able to avoid the ban using a VPN. A law in the US state of Utah - which was similar to Australia’s - was overturned by a federal judge who found it unconstitutional. Australia’s laws are being watched with great interest by global leaders. Norway has recently pledged to follow in the country’s footsteps, and last week the UK’s technology secretary said a similar ban was “on the table” - though he later added “not... at the moment”.

Additional reporting by Tiffanie Turnbull in Sydney

Wouldn't it be so much more easier not to give them internet access and make sure they don't have unsupervised access to it in the first place until they could learn to be sensible and trusted.

[vk6zgo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o

Australia approves social media ban on under-16s
The ban will be enforced by the nation's internet regulator
Hannah Ritchie, BBC News, Sydney
Published 28 November 2024
Australia will ban children under 16 from using social media, after its parliament approved the world's strictest laws.

The ban, which will not take effect for at least 12 months, could see tech companies fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7m) if they don't comply.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the "harms" of social media, something many parent groups have echoed. But critics say questions over how the ban will work - and its impact on privacy and social connection - have been left unanswered. This is not the first attempt globally to restrict children's social media use, but the minimum age of 16 is the highest set by any country. Unlike other attempts, it also does not include exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent. Having passed the Senate by 34 votes to 19 late on Thursday, the bill returned to the House of Representatives where it passed early on Friday.

“We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs," Albanese told reporters afterwards. The legislation does not specify which platforms will be banned. Those decisions will be made later by Australia’s communications minister, who will seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner - an internet regulator that will enforce the rules. However the minister, Michelle Rowland, has said the ban will include Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and X. Gaming and messaging platforms are exempt, as are sites that can be accessed without an account, meaning YouTube, for instance, is likely to be spared.

The government says will it rely on some form of age-verification technology to implement the restrictions, and options will be tested in the coming months. The onus will be on the social media platforms to add these processes themselves. However digital researchers have warned there are no guarantees the unspecified technology - which could rely on biometrics or identity information - will work. Critics have also sought assurances that privacy will be protected. They have also warned that restrictions could easily be circumvented through tools like a VPN - which can disguise a user’s location and make them appear to be logging on from another country. Children who find ways to flout the rules will not face penalties, however.

Polling on the reforms, though limited, suggests it is supported by a majority of Australian parents and caregivers. "For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out," Amy Friedlander, who was among those lobbying for the ban, recently told the BBC. "We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of." But many experts say the ban is "too blunt an instrument" to effectively address the risks associated with social media use, and have warned it could end up pushing children into less regulated corners of the internet.

During a short consultation period before the bill passed, Google and Snap criticised the legislation for not providing more detail, and Meta said the bill would be "ineffective" and not meet its stated aim of making kids safer. In its submission, TikTok said the government’s definition of a social media platform was so "broad and unclear" that "almost every online service could fall within [it]". X questioned the "lawfulness" of the bill - saying it may not be compatible with international regulations and human rights treaties which Australia has signed.

Some youth advocates also accused the government of not fully understanding the role social media plays in their lives, and locking them out of the debate. "We understand we are vulnerable to the risks and negative impacts of social media… but we need to be involved in developing solutions," wrote the eSafety Youth Council, which advises the regulator. Albanese has acknowledged the debate is complex but steadfastly defended the bill."We don't argue that its implementation will be perfect, just like the alcohol ban for [children] under 18 doesn’t mean that someone under 18 never has access – but we know that it’s the right thing to do," he said on Friday.

Last year, France introduced legislation to block social media access for children under 15 without parental consent, though research indicates almost half of users were able to avoid the ban using a VPN. A law in the US state of Utah - which was similar to Australia’s - was overturned by a federal judge who found it unconstitutional. Australia’s laws are being watched with great interest by global leaders. Norway has recently pledged to follow in the country’s footsteps, and last week the UK’s technology secretary said a similar ban was “on the table” - though he later added “not... at the moment”.

Additional reporting by Tiffanie Turnbull in Sydney

Wouldn't it be so much more easier not to give them internet access and make sure they don't have unsupervised access to it in the first place until they could learn to be sensible and trusted.

And how might you do that?
There are 50 year olds who aren't sensible or trustworthy.