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

[EEVblog]

In fairness, I couldn't really comment on "X" without sampling it, so I joined up.
I'm sorry to say that I was underwhelmed.
There was no "political discourse" to speak of, all I found was a bunch of Trump supporters going "nyah, nyah, nyah ,nyah!" at supporters of the other side, who responded in kind.

You can't just join and then suddenly be inundated with magical truths.
You have to follow the correct people or hashtags etc.
As I mentioned, almost every politican is on there, so for example I'm really concerned with what's happening with this under 16's ban and the misinformation bill recently, so if you follow all the key politicans involved in this you see all the Community Notes if they say bullshit, and you'll see the general zeitgeist of the people in the responses as the politicans spew their latest opinion.
And some of the best independent political commentators are on X, and only on X.

[vk6zgo]

supporters going "nyah, nyah, nyah ,nyah!" at supporters of the other side, who responded in kind.

The only difference is which side is  "this" and which is the "other".
This is not a twitter "bug".
It's a planet earth feature.

Indeed, but the wondrous "butterflies & unicorns" features so touted by enthusiasts were nowhere to be found.

In theory, I could go to an AFL game between Collingwood & Fremantle, sit amongst a bunch of rabid Collingwood fans, loudly & vociferously support the "Dockers" & not "get my head pushed in", but discretion being the better part of valour, I probably wouldn't.

"X" strikes me as being much the same, though with much less threat to "life & limb".

Saying even mildly nasty things about Elon tends to elicit the same reaction from his followers.
Just like with the "footy" game, upsetting the majority of attendees is likely to lead to you being "jumped on".

[Halcyon]

I wonder how they will go with workplace applications like Microsoft Teams, Slack etc... considering you can be 14 years old and be legally employed.

[John B]

I wonder how they will go with workplace applications like Microsoft Teams, Slack etc... considering you can be 14 years old and be legally employed.

During covid, these were extensively used by schools, both teachers and students. They're all going to be monitored like crazy by employers and government alike, so I think all the official voyeurs are already satisfied 

[EEVblog]

I wonder how they will go with workplace applications like Microsoft Teams

My 13yo uses Teams to chat to his friends while playing minecraft, he says everyone uses it, standard issue on their school laptops.

[EEVblog]

UPDATE on the Misinformation bill. It's been officially revoked today! 
Huge pressure now on the U16 ban as they are getting hammered from every direction.

[jpanhalt]

Good for Australians.

[vk6zgo]

"No politics"?---- You could have fooled me!

[EEVblog]

"No politics"?---- You could have fooled me!

This is directly relevant to this forum as a potential "social media" site, and also to Youtube and other video platforms that could be banned in Australia for under 16's.

[.RC.]

Well the social media ban laws got passed.

All users of declared sites (which is potentially any internet site) will require verification of age to use them starting sometime next year.

[EEVblog]

Well the social media ban laws got passed.
All users of declared sites (which is potentially any internet site) will require verification of age to use them starting sometime next year.

Australia just went fall retard. You never go full retard.

[Nominal Animal]

You cannot fix social problems using technical measures, not on the intertubes.

Social media minimum age limit is a good idea, because there is research that indicates its effects on humans and especially kids is negative.

However, policing that should not be up to the web sites, but to families and parents.  Talk to your kids and set the rules!  If you leave parenting to schools and TV and social media, you're giving your children a really bad bum start in life.

I'm even more convinced than before that this is a symptom of humans becoming an eusocial species: parenting is "outsourced" to the communal "nest", with basically any and all means allowed to secure that "nest", with everything outside that nest or against the attempts to secure that nest immediately labeled Offensive and Evil and to be Rejected.

I'm not a Luddite, either.  I definitely believe that proper use of Internet can really benefit all levels of education.  Yet, I believe that having phones in the classroom is more negative than positive.  I've found for myself, and seen in others, that physically writing with your hands aids learning in some/many –– not all, but sufficiently often to make it an important part of early education.  Even here in Nordic countries, university students are starting to have difficulty reading and integrating long texts, being inundated with short quick text snippets, being unable to focus for long enough.

This is obvious and easily verified based on current research.  Why is it so damn hard to understand?  (I know: easy solutions that look like they might work are preferred over the hard solutions known to work, because short-sighted humans.)

[coppice]

You cannot fix social problems using technical measures, not on the intertubes.

Its not just on the intertubes. Technical measures to solve social problems is a game of wack-a-mole, that people seldom have the good sense to back out from, unless a super sized mallet wacks them. They just keep adding arms and mallets, until it looks to an outsider like something very oppressive, but utterly ineffective.

[coppice]

Well the social media ban laws got passed.
All users of declared sites (which is potentially any internet site) will require verification of age to use them starting sometime next year.

Australia just went fall retard. You never go full retard.

I assume, like the UK parliament, your politicians are dominated by people who have never provided a product or service in real life, and just followed the school, to university, to parasite, to elected parasite pipeline. This is a recipe for incompetent governance.

[Nominal Animal]

You cannot fix social problems using technical measures, not on the intertubes.

Its not just on the intertubes. Technical measures to solve social problems is a game of wack-a-mole, that people seldom have the good sense to back out from, unless a super sized mallet wacks them. They just keep adding arms and mallets, until it looks to an outsider like something very oppressive, but utterly ineffective.

This happened in Finland to the Christian Democrat long-term representative and once-chairwoman Päivi Räsänen, who was very vocal in restricting free speech and introducing hate speech related legislation.  She's now been charged for hate speech for the fourth time times I believe, all for quoting the Bible publicly.  I'm not sure she learned her lesson, though; I do believe she still claims the law is good, just applied inappropriately (i.e. "you're doing what I helped legislate, not what I intended you to do, so you're doing it wrong!").

So, I kinda-sorta disagree with the "unless" part: most humans don't often learn even from their own mistakes, when it comes to politics.  Ideology just bulldozes over logic and rationality, it seems.

[magic]

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

Those people only talk about "rule of the masses" because they are so full of it to think that the masses agree with them and that they alone know what the masses want. There isn't much you can do to help them. Come to think of it, such ideology is inherently a magnet for narcissists, and if narcissists were capable of self reflection, they wouldn't be narcissists in the first place. So there you go.

[coppice]

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

I think you mean a democrat will never be a democrat. Their names are chosen not to illuminate, but to obscure. Doubly so when the name starts with "Democratic", like "Democratic Republic of Human Oppression and Despair".

[thm_w]

"YouGov survey found that 77% of Australians back the under-16 social media ban, a significant increase from the 61% support found in an August poll prior to the government's official announcement. Only 23% oppose the measure."

https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-social-media-ban-soars-to-77-among-australians

I get the policy is dumb, but, if people are demanding one, maybe they are just trying to appease the masses.

Well the social media ban laws got passed.

All users of declared sites (which is potentially any internet site) will require verification of age to use them starting sometime next year.

They will require verification but it sounded like no specific implementation was written in. So it could be a popup or it could be something much more strict, who knows.

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?

[themadhippy]

YouGov survey found that 77% of Australians back the under-16 social media ban, a significant increase from the 61% support found in an August poll prior to the government's official announcement. Only 23% oppose the measure."

of the 1515 asked , out of a population of about 21 million aged 18+

[thm_w]

YouGov survey found that 77% of Australians back the under-16 social media ban, a significant increase from the 61% support found in an August poll prior to the government's official announcement. Only 23% oppose the measure."

of the 1515 asked , out of a population of about 21 million aged 18+

Yes... thats how sampled polls work, margin of error was 3%. It could still be off, but its clearly an opinion of a very large percentage of the population.

The under 18 view is a different argument, if you want to get into that. See the bit from Nominal Animal above about phones in the classroom. We banned phones in classes here, and I'm sure many kids would be against it, but why does that matter?

[Nominal Animal]

"YouGov survey found that 77% of Australians back the under-16 social media ban, a significant increase from the 61% support found in an August poll prior to the government's official announcement. Only 23% oppose the measure."

https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-social-media-ban-soars-to-77-among-australians

I get the policy is dumb, but, if people are demanding one, maybe they are just trying to appease the masses.

Or maybe they sold it to the masses as the solution to the problem they're seeing, because they are well aware that the actually known working solutions would be harder to swallow (like increasing parental responsibility of what kids do on the net) and therefore negatively affect the politicians' popularity.

There are three ways to be a populist: one is to lie, and say whatever people want to hear; another is to concentrate on fixing the things people are worried about; the third, the most common way, is to be delusional and believe you're doing the second while actually doing the first.

"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?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway: neither; it's the legislation attempting to control morality and feelings.

(Also note that the prosecutor never claimed that Räsänen was factually wrong; only that the statement was hateful and against a protected minority, and thus punishable.  Even the relation between child abuse and homosexuality is stated to exist in peer-reviewed research.  Specifically, "results suggest that causal relationships driving the association between sexual orientation and childhood abuse may be bidirectional, may differ by type of abuse, and may differ by sex".  Immorality was referenced in context of Christian Lutheranism, or the bible.)

We already had quite strict defamation laws (slander, libel) here in Finland before.  These new laws simply made it easier for certain politically motivated people within the government to attack their ideological rivals (or enemies, as they seem to view them).  The politicians wanting those laws thought they would protect their religion and religious utterances from attacks; but as their opponents gained power (or rather, the government offices where they could prosecute others), the opposite happened.

At a time when the police doesn't have enough resources to investigate non-commercial burglaries, resources have been dedicated for police to comb social media for hateful speech and investigating those.  This is wrong, and is a pure waste of resources, leading only to negative consequences (specifically, polarization of the society, loss of societal cohesion).

For Australia, the legislation will lead to lots of resources spent by website operators, that will have zero effect on under 16's social media use.  Wasted resources, annoying ordinary users, just like EU GDPR and web cookies: that does nothing to curb the actual data collection, and just annoys the hell out of everyone.  Alphabet and Facebook and others have and sell full profiles on every web user, even though they had never consented nor registered to their services, and those profiles will be used to try and sell you stuff you're not interested in.  In the end, government officials will use these laws to go after websites they don't like.

[coppice]

"YouGov survey found that 77% of Australians back the under-16 social media ban, a significant increase from the 61% support found in an August poll prior to the government's official announcement. Only 23% oppose the measure."

https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-social-media-ban-soars-to-77-among-australians

I get the policy is dumb, but, if people are demanding one, maybe they are just trying to appease the masses.

These things rarely show the actual questions which were asked in the survey. Write the questions in the right way, and you can achieve any result you want. Surveyors are so used to rigging the result they seem confused when you task them with ACTUALLY figuring out what public wants.

[thm_w]

These things rarely show the actual questions which were asked in the survey. Write the questions in the right way, and you can achieve any result you want. Surveyors are so used to rigging the result they seem confused when you task them with ACTUALLY figuring out what public wants.

No, you can see some of their previous questions here, they are very clearly laid out with no visible bias I can see: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/071024QLDStatePollingMethodologyStatement.pdf

The question was probably something like "Do you support or oppose the proposed under-16 social media ban".

[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.

Yes, some will still answer with utopistic unrealistic things like "I'd force peace everywhere on Earth" and similar.  (I'd retort by asking exactly how they'd do that, repeating, until I get some concrete ideas.)

However, if you preface the question by getting them into a local/my-own-life mindset –– thinking about themselves, their family, their local community, their work and workflow ––, they will often point out the most annoying consequences of the actual main problems they have.

Note: they still won't immediately tell you what the actual underlying problem is –– not many people even realize the things they are fighting are not the real problems, but just the consequences of not dealing correctly with the actual underlying problem ––, but you'll get much closer this way.  If the situation is complex (or in the workplace, involves several different tools), you often have to backtrack several steps to find where the original error was made, and where the fixes are the most effective.

Even in the matter at hand, the actual problem is not that kids spend time on socal media.  It is that kids spending time in social media are –– statistically speaking –– negatively affected in many areas of life, from reduced ability to concentrate to lack of self control and increased violent outbursts.
Adding technical controls to social media to act on behalf of parenting is a poor fix for that.  It is funny how few people realize this.

[magic]

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.