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

[.RC.]

Reading the ABC today the federal government's proposed banning of all social media for under 16's and no doubt some "verification" system required for those over 16 to access.

The definition of "social media" is very broad and then minister in charge said youtube will be included.

Does this mean eevblog will also be banned for under 16's? Or will esafety Karen class it as "low risk"  I have seen some risque photos of dismembered circuit boards here, and indecent uses of soldering irons.

Of course I post this with a bit of tongue in cheek, while the Australian government really is pushing ahead with this.   We all know it is in all likely not going to happen, but if they pushed it, it will be an abysmal failure.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/how-the-age-minimum-for-social-media-will-work/104571790

The definition of a social media service as per the Online Safety Act according to the ABC can be found below:

    1.  The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users;
    2.  The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;
    3.  The service allows end users to post material on the service.

[magic]

Maybe it would be enough to disable the "mentions" and "thanks" plugins, if that's what they mean by "linking to or interacting with other users".

[coppercone2]

databases of personal infromation are not safe, you can get a criminal actor stealing some incompetent government bullshit. I wonder how they figured out how to send all those people text messages in our little recent USA event. Apparently massive accurate messaging (race and phone number) for just a nasty little prank.

I feel like the elites never care about this, because they have piles of money, armies of lawyers and 'friends'  (strings to pull) that will vouch for them to get them off the hook for like identity/personal information-related scams and crimes that will bury a regular citizen without special powers. Hell, witness testimony basically means nothing for them, they don't even knowledge that personal information and IDs can possibly be harmful.

Its always someone who lives on the fucking moon that comes up with these kinda things. "I will have my servants deal with those kinds of problems"

[jpanhalt]

Is that the same ABC News as the American Broadcasting Company?  I considered it could the the Australian Broadcasting Company, but then saw this:

American women join 4B movement as Trump's male-supremacist supporters threaten rape

 

That would fit reporting from the deranged American company.

In a Vietnam era (1969) the SCOTUS ruled that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”   Although schools may require surrender of cell phones and the like so as not to disrupt classes, I doubt an age-related banning from social media would pass our constitutional test.  According to Google AI, Australia doesn't have the exact equivalent right, but its courts have ruled that freedom of expression is incorporated in other aspects of its constitution.

 

[Halcyon]

Does this mean eevblog will also be banned for under 16's? Or will esafety Karen class it as "low risk"

The definition of a social media service as per the Online Safety Act according to the ABC can be found below:

    1.  The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users;
    2.  The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;
    3.  The service allows end users to post material on the service.

I highly doubt it. Can you imagine the impact it would have on all those forums out there. What about vendor support forums?

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

While some people use it as a social "hangout", it's not the sole or primary purpose. I think LinkedIn is more "social" than here.

EEVblog as a company, is a professional engineering organisation. The forum is just the side salad.

[jpanhalt]

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

1) I don't think your distinction between social and technical media will fly.  The interactions and reactions by individuals on this forum are social. "Be excellent to each other."
2) In the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects social media companies from legal liability for most user content.  It might be a serious mistake if EEVBlog argued it was not social media and won as it would lose that protection.

[vk6zgo]

Is that the same ABC News as the American Broadcasting Company?  I considered it could the the Australian Broadcasting Company, but then saw this:

American women join 4B movement as Trump's male-supremacist supporters threaten rape

 

That would fit reporting from the deranged American company.

In a Vietnam era (1969) the SCOTUS ruled that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”   Although schools may require surrender of cell phones and the like so as not to disrupt classes, I doubt an age-related banning from social media would pass our constitutional test.  According to Google AI, Australia doesn't have the exact equivalent right, but its courts have ruled that freedom of expression is incorporated in other aspects of its constitution.

 

No it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation---nothing to do with the US company.
As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

[.RC.]

As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

  

[Stray Electron]

   It's interesting to me that this discussion started out talking about the proposed Australian ban on children under 16 using social media but then immediately pivoted to the topic of the dis-honesty of some news networks.  Networks which are legally WELL protected in most western countries.  It seems to me that all any social media company really needs to do in order to completely insulate itself from any and all restrictions and liabilities, is to simply call themselves "a news-company".  Then they will have all of the protections available to the New York Times, CNN and all of the rest of the lying news organizations.

  This problem is a lot bigger than just sub 16 years olds using social media and I'd like to see some kind of restrictions placed on all "harmful content", and in particular "dishonest reporting", in all media regardless of the age market that it's intended for.  Harmful content obviously to include anything that would make it addictive.

[jpanhalt]

News organization are protected in the US, but that protection  is less than Section 230 provides.  They can be sued for slander and have lost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-post-settles-lawsuit-with-family-of-kentucky-teenager/2020/07/24/ae42144c-cdbd-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html

Those are just the top two hits Google gave me.  EEVBlog is better protected as a social medium in the US.

[.RC.]

   It's interesting to me that this discussion started out talking about the proposed Australian ban on children under 16 using social media but then immediately pivoted to the topic of the dis-honesty of some news networks. 

I suppose the irony about your observation though is that something not mentioned here is the same Australian government seeking to "ban" all under 16's from "social media" also has just passed laws through parliament (but hopefully unlikely to pass the senate) whereby "misinformation" whatever that is, will be banned with penalties for those who said the whatever with the government created committee to be the determinator of truth, also the politicians have exempted themselves from said laws.

When both left wing and right wing media outlets totally pan the same laws, you can pretty much guess they are stupid laws.

Left wing media outlet panning the laws https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/09/19/anthony-albanese-misinformation-disinformation-legislation/

Right wing media outlet panning the same laws.  https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/attack-on-our-freedoms-governments-revised-online-misinformation-bill-slammed-as-chilling-assault-on-free-speech/news-story/03f202bf41f4255fd0f7c4b4c05682fe

So while forums operating in Australia may potentially have to introduce an identity mechanism so only >16 year olds are able to use it, these same forums also may have to potentially also trawl their forums to combat what think a capital city based committee will think is "misinformation".

It will be like the tighter they hold their grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.

[jpanhalt]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?  You are further away than just 16 hours.

[coppice]

No it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation---nothing to do with the US company.
As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

How do those 2 statements go together?

[Halcyon]

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

1) I don't think your distinction between social and technical media will fly.  The interactions and reactions by individuals on this forum are social. "Be excellent to each other."
2) In the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects social media companies from legal liability for most user content.  It might be a serious mistake if EEVBlog argued it was not social media and won as it would lose that protection.

I disagree.

You need to consider the wording of the legislation. "Sole" or "Primary purpose" is very important here. EEVblog is much more than just this forum. No matter how social or anti-social this forum is, it still doesn't meet that definition. If it would, that would mean the likes of Lawrence Systems' forum would be considered social media (which of course it isn't).

I don't even think that the Australian telecommunications forum, "Whirlpool", which is just a forum, would even meet the definition. I don't think there would be a single court in Australia that would agree that it was.

Secondly, application of US law would rely on the definitions under that law, not what another country considers to be "social media". Besides, I don't think Dave is worried about US law. EEVblog is governed by Australian law, first and foremost.

[jpanhalt]

Hey, if EEVBlog wants to be a publisher of technical information, that is fine with me.  Dave's lawyers may disagree.  That is, if you can hide under the social media label do it, even if it offends your ego. 

The US is a big place with lots of crazy people and contingency lawyers.  Aren't your servers here, or did you move them?

[coppice]

You need to consider the wording of the legislation. "Sole" or "Primary purpose" is very important here. EEVblog is much more than just this forum. No matter how social or anti-social this forum is, it still doesn't meet that definition. If it would, that would mean the likes of Lawrence Systems' forum would be considered social media (which of course it isn't).

I suspect a high percentage of this forum's users are barely aware of anything EEVblog consists of besides this forum. I see no mention of the types of social interaction which this legislation covers, whether they be hobbies, technical, or the types of thing more typical of mainstream social media sites. It appears to be a blanket thing.

I don't even think that the Australian telecommunications forum, "Whirlpool", which is just a forum, would even meet the definition. I don't think there would be a single court in Australia that would agree that it was.

As far as I know, from getting some answers there over the years, the sole and primary purpose of Whirlpool is to be a social forum, where people post problems and discuss solutions. I've mostly been there for technical issues, but it seems to host a pretty wide range of interactions.

[magic]

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

While some people use it as a social "hangout", it's not the sole or primary purpose.

Well, it says "social interaction", not "socializing". So I guess you can go to court and argue that information exchange and learning assistance aren't social interactions. Someone else will say that it is. Lawyers will win either way

Experience teaches that expecting politicians not to be stupid may be placing an unrealistic demand on them...

[Halcyon]

I suspect a high percentage of this forum's users are barely aware of anything EEVblog consists of besides this forum.

User awareness doesn't factor into the argument.

[EEVblog]

Does this mean eevblog will also be banned for under 16's?

Over my dead body.

[EEVblog]

Secondly, application of US law would rely on the definitions under that law, not what another country considers to be "social media". Besides, I don't think Dave is worried about US law. EEVblog is governed by Australian law, first and foremost.

Also under US law for the server itself. e.g. DMCA

[EEVblog]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?

We already do (seriously), she is known as eKaren here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Inman_Grant

Elon Musk famously told her to get stuffed when asked to remove a video from X, he beat eKaren in court. This case was front page news in Australia.
https://www.rebelnews.com/australia_s_e-karen_plays_victim_following_failed_legal_action

[jpanhalt]

I feel for you.  Biden floated the idea and was soundly beaten down.

It's hard to imagine a free people living under that sword.

[coppice]

I feel for you.  Biden floated the idea and was soundly beaten down.

It's hard to imagine a free people living under that sword.

Few countries have something solid to cling onto, like the US first amendment, when oppression tries to strike. That makes most countries quite vulnerable. In the UK we have something called a D notice, which not only makes it illegal to publish information the government chooses to suppress, but makes it illegal to even mention that there is something going on that can't be talked about. So, it goes way beyond withholding sensitive information that might be a risk to national security. It gets used in idiotic ways, like Margaret Thatcher suppressing a book in the UK that was published everywhere else for "national security" reasons.

The Biden proposal was highly unlikely to get very far. It just made him look really bad. The proposal was pretty honest, though, including a category that was basically "its true, but inconvenient for the government".

[vk6zgo]

No it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation---nothing to do with the US company.
As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

How do those 2 statements go together?

Real TV networks only have a couple of hours between something happening & reporting it, so it is hard to confer with flinty eyed agents of the "Left".
When I worked for TVW7 in Perth, they got the news right many more times than the Murdoch owned "Sunday Times", which had a whole week to get it right.

Things like Sky "News" Australia don't have the same time constraints, so produce "opinion pieces", which reflect the ideas of their management.

[themadhippy]

In the UK we have something called a D notice, which not only makes it illegal to publish information the government chooses to suppress

rebranded as  dsma a few years back,and not legally binding

[vk6zgo]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?  You are further away than just 16 hours.

There is no "Minister of Truth", You can be required to remove lies, but you won't be arrested.

[EEVblog]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?  You are further away than just 16 hours.

There is no "Minister of Truth", You can be required to remove lies, but you won't be arrested.

If you refuse to remove the lies, you get a court summons or fine.
If you refuse to pay the fine or the court summons, eventually men with guns come to your door and arrest you.
So same thing, just takes more steps.

[jpanhalt]

Maybe Musk can do Australians a favor and send the ISS to eKaren when it de-orbits.

[Halcyon]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?  You are further away than just 16 hours.

There is no "Minister of Truth", You can be required to remove lies, but you won't be arrested.

If you refuse to remove the lies, you get a court summons or fine.
If you refuse to pay the fine or the court summons, eventually men with guns come to your door and arrest you.
So same thing, just takes more steps.

There aren't any men in guns left. NSW Police is thousands of officers short of authorised strength. Some stations are closing because they can't fill shifts, some others are running at 50% capacity. I get the feeling "Cost benefit analysis" will be applied to a lot of jobs.

[EEVblog]

There aren't any men in guns left. NSW Police is thousands of officers short of authorised strength. Some stations are closing because they can't fill shifts, some others are running at 50% capacity. I get the feeling "Cost benefit analysis" will be applied to a lot of jobs.

So you are saying I can just stop paying my taxes because there is no one left to arrest me? 

[Halcyon]

There aren't any men in guns left. NSW Police is thousands of officers short of authorised strength. Some stations are closing because they can't fill shifts, some others are running at 50% capacity. I get the feeling "Cost benefit analysis" will be applied to a lot of jobs.

So you are saying I can just stop paying my taxes because there is no one left to arrest me? 

While you're at it, join the sov. cit. movement and start believing the earth is flat. 

[mikeselectricstuff]

Are they so dumb they don't realise that kids are smart enough to find workarounds for this BS?

[magic]

We already do (seriously), she is known as eKaren here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Inman_Grant

Julie Inman Grant (born 1968 or 1969) is an American

In 2005, Grant became the Asia-Pacific director of internet safety, privacy and security at Microsoft

You guys need to build a border wall, or an ocean, or something to keep those people out

[magic]

Are they so dumb they don't realise that kids are smart enough to find workarounds for this BS?

Don't worry, they will spend some of your money to hire men in black suits to track down a few of those kids and take them away from their parents for "negligence".

Relevant classic:
https://xkcd.com/538/

And don't forget that you are already forbidden from reading information useful to terrorists, so I could post in this thread how to synthesize TNT and get you swatted.
It's that simple

[Halcyon]

Are they so dumb they don't realise that kids are smart enough to find workarounds for this BS?

It's the same bullshit that's been happening since the internet was a thing. I remember in high school, we had a SOCKS proxy which acted as an internet gateway to library computers, of course there was some basic filtering, and of course the kids got around it.

It's like Australia's non-compulsory DNS blocking of bad websites. Firstly, the ISPs can simply ignore the direction, and secondly, users can get around it with ease.

[EEVblog]

FYI, breaking news today, it looks like the infamous Misinformation/Disinformation bill will NOT pass parliment after several independent senators have said they'll vote against it.
This is potentially good news for ditching the ridiculous social media ban.

[EEVblog]

Are they so dumb they don't realise that kids are smart enough to find workarounds for this BS?

They are so stupid that they think that just because they can ban means that it's technicially possible.
Just when our PM at the time infamously said that the laws of mathetatics don't apply in Australia 
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/

[Halcyon]

FYI, breaking news today, it looks like the infamous Misinformation/Disinformation bill will NOT pass parliment after several independent senators have said they'll vote against it.
This is potentially good news for ditching the ridiculous social media ban.

Happy days! Good old Pauline!

[Halcyon]

Are they so dumb they don't realise that kids are smart enough to find workarounds for this BS?

They are so stupid that they think that just because they can ban means that it's technicially possible.
Just when our PM at the time infamously said that the laws of mathetatics don't apply in Australia 
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/

This is the same fuckwit who said replacing the old, corroding, decaying copper network with fibre optics wouldn't be worth it. They have now spent more money maintaining said shit network than it would have been to roll out glass to most homes. Only now are they playing catch-up. This same bloke used to work in the telco industry as well. A classic case of "What would the engineers know? I know better."

[EEVblog]

FYI, breaking news today, it looks like the infamous Misinformation/Disinformation bill will NOT pass parliment after several independent senators have said they'll vote against it.
This is potentially good news for ditching the ridiculous social media ban.

Happy days! Good old Pauline!

It was Lambie and Payman that pushed it over the line today. Payman was close to getting forced out of the sentate, so I suspect she went for the populist option to save her bacon, and it seems to have worked. A lot of people on X are saying they don't like her, but are all saying a genuine thanks for this one.
https://x.com/SenatorPayman/status/1857284271175774661

[EEVblog]

This is the same fuckwit who said replacing the old, corroding, decaying copper network with fibre optics wouldn't be worth it. They have now spent more money maintaining said shit network than it would have been to roll out glass to most homes. Only now are they playing catch-up. This same bloke used to work in the telco industry as well. A classic case of "What would the engineers know? I know better."

They just HAD to go for a different solution than the other party, even if it was half arsed 
For those who don't know, our National Broadband Network was the #1 issue at our federal election at the time, and the public voted for the half-arsed solution 

[themadhippy]

This is the same fuckwit who said replacing the old, corroding, decaying copper network with fibre optics wouldn't be worth it.

sounds similar to a certain uk pm but that was more to fudge the books ready  for  privatisation

[.RC.]

So my take on the NBN was it was a shit idea for the government to get involved again in the communications market after it had deregulated it and sold it all off.

The people with the worst internet connections got the stick treatment, while those with the best, got an even better one.

[Zero999]

Is that the same ABC News as the American Broadcasting Company?  I considered it could the the Australian Broadcasting Company, but then saw this:

American women join 4B movement as Trump's male-supremacist supporters threaten rape

 

That would fit reporting from the deranged American company.

In a Vietnam era (1969) the SCOTUS ruled that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”   Although schools may require surrender of cell phones and the like so as not to disrupt classes, I doubt an age-related banning from social media would pass our constitutional test.  According to Google AI, Australia doesn't have the exact equivalent right, but its courts have ruled that freedom of expression is incorporated in other aspects of its constitution.

How much protection does the constitution really provide? It might stop blatant abuse and laws which limit free speech, but it didn't stop the Biden regime* putting pressure on big tech to censor things which they didn't like.

To those who supported it, or think I'm specifically attaching the Democrats. I wouldn't put it past the other side from doing the same thing. The same mechanism can be used to "clamp down on LGBT+ propaganda, harmful to children", "promote Christian values etc."

[coppice]

How much protection does the constitution really provide? It might stop blatant abuse and laws which limit free speech, but it didn't stop the Biden regime* putting pressure on big tech to censor things which they didn't like.

To those who supported it, or think I'm specifically attaching the Democrats. I wouldn't put it past the other side from doing the same thing. The same mechanism can be used to "clamp down on LGBT+ propaganda, harmful to children", "promote Christian values etc."

Its like election tampering. Both sides do it, but both sides attack the other for doing it. So, it does tend to keep things in check, even if they can stray pretty far in the short term.

[John B]

As per above, our government gravitates towards authoritarianism, but authoritarians aren't homogeneous. Leveraging that fact is probably one of the best ways for the common folk to retain some power over the political process.

I have to wonder how much of Fatima Payton's opinion on the matter is influenced by the fact that many of the far left found themselves on the wrong side of establishment leftists in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

If this had been pushed through during covid I worry that Labor and Liberals alike would have been in agreement, and together they vastly outnumber independents and minor parties that would have voted against on principle.

[EEVblog]

I have to wonder how much of Fatima Payton's opinion on the matter is influenced by the fact that many of the far left found themselves on the wrong side of establishment leftists in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

One has only to "read the room" to know what side is safest to be on. Especialy given the recent populist wins in various countries. Especially so when probably a majority of the country wants you physically removed from parliment and has called for your resignation.

Although technically they don't have the votes to get it passed, it only requires ONE senator to simply abstain from the vote and it will pass, it's that close. This ain't over yet.

[.RC.]

Well they introduced their laws, and they gave anyone 24 hours to lodge a submission about them.

Looks like the government minister shall have the power to say what and what not is to be banned.   Funnily enough youtube has already been ruled out.

63C   Age-restricted social media platform

             (1)  For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:

                     (a)  an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:

                              (i)  the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;

                             (ii)  the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;

                            (iii)  the service allows end-users to post material on the service;

                            (iv)  such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or

                     (b)  an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;

but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).

Note 1:       Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction.

Note 2:       An age-restricted social media platform may be, but is not necessarily, a social media service under section 13.

Note 3:       For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003 .

             (2)  For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(a)(i), online social interaction includes online interaction that enables end-users to share material for social purposes.

Note:          Social purposes does not include (for example) business purposes.

             (3)  In determining whether the condition set out in subparagraph (1)(a)(i) is satisfied, disregard any of the following purposes:

                     (a)  the provision of advertising material on the service;

                     (b)  the generation of revenue from the provision of advertising material on the service.

             (4)  The Minister may only make legislative rules specifying an electronic service for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) if the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to minimise harm to age-restricted users.

             (5)  Before making legislative rules specifying an electronic service for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b):

                     (a)  the Minister must seek advice from the Commissioner, and must have regard to that advice; and

                     (b)  the Minister may seek advice from any other authorities or agencies of the Commonwealth that the Minister considers relevant, and may have regard to any such advice.

Services that are not age-restricted social media platforms

             (6)  An electronic service is not an age-restricted social media platform if:

                     (a)  none of the material on the service is accessible to, or delivered to, one or more end-users in Australia; or

                     (b)  the service is specified in the legislative rules.

Note:          For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003 .

             (7)  Before making legislative rules specifying an electronic service for the purposes of paragraph (6)(b):

                     (a)  the Minister must seek advice from the Commissioner, and must have regard to that advice; and

                     (b)  the Minister may seek advice from any other authorities or agencies of the Commonwealth that the Minister considers relevant, and may have regard to any such advice.

[\quote]

[themadhippy]

And in english?

[jpanhalt]

When China invades, you'll hardly notice the change.

[.RC.]

And in english?

It is in the Kings English.

Essentially this.

   

(1)  For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:

                     (a)  an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:

                              (i)  the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;

                             (ii)  the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;

                            (iii)  the service allows end-users to post material on the service;

                            (iv)  such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or

                     (b)  an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;

So that pretty much means any "service" where people can stop and chat via keyboard, including SMS.  By reading it (b) also allows the minister to add without any oversight any other website as it can declare something in the "legislative rules" which is weasel words* for everything else.  The minister may have to consult with esafety karen, but esafety karen by her actions seems to have a hard on for full on censorship. Some dickhead here did a pretty shit attempt at stabbing a religious minister in a place of worship.  The religious minister survived pretty unscathed and all the video showed was a blurry scuffle.  No blood or anything, yet esafety karen tried to ban that video from all Australian's.

What these rules will do is just drive younger teenagers to places like 4chan and darker places of the internetz that the government can not touch as they have no presence in Australia.


*another example of "weasel words" is state drink driving laws.  In one state it says such and such about being in control of a car, bike, scooter, horse, camel, emu, etc on public roads, then it pulls in the term "or elsewhere", which is defined as everywhere else.  Which means if you were sitting in your car in the garage listening to the radio, drinking your third beer and you have a blood alcohol level of over 0.05 (or zero if you were sitting in a truck listening to the radio), you can be done for drink driving.

[EEVblog]

So that pretty much means any "service" where people can stop and chat via keyboard, including SMS.  By reading it (b) also allows the minister to add without any oversight any other website as it can declare something in the "legislative rules" which is weasel words* for everything else.  The minister may have to consult with esafety karen, but esafety karen by her actions seems to have a hard on for full on censorship. Some dickhead here did a pretty shit attempt at stabbing a religious minister in a place of worship.  The religious minister survived pretty unscathed and all the video showed was a blurry scuffle.  No blood or anything, yet esafety karen tried to ban that video from all Australian's.

Which goes to show they are willing to use these power for purely political purposes.
Context for those who don't know, this was the biggest story in the country. Even the bishop who got stabbed wanted the footage to remain up.
All the social media companeis compied and removed the video, except X, Elon told eKaren to go pleasure herself. eKaren sued X and LOST.

They just got their arses kicked on the Misinformation bill which will not go through, now they are trying to push this U16 social media ban through with 24hours notice.
IMO there has to be somebody above our prime minister pushing him to do this, no politican is this stupid and willing through throw away their career for this.

[coppice]

They just got their arses kicked on the Misinformation bill which will not go through.

Are you sure, or is that misinformation? Was this a bill to formalise the government's right to misinform, or one to stop others telling the truth by defining misinformation as anything said that's against the government's interests?

[EEVblog]

Was this a bill to formalise the government's right to misinform, or one to stop others telling the truth by defining misinformation as anything said that's against the government's interests?

Both.
All the major independ senators are now against the bill so it doesn't have the numbers. But they might still stupidly try take it to a vote anyway.

[vk6zgo]

When China invades, you'll hardly notice the change.

The last time China successfully invaded anywhere was Tibet in 1951.
Their Invasion of Vietnam in 1979 led to a bloody nose for the PLA.

[.RC.]

Well eevblog did not make the initial ban list.   Funnily enough neither did facebook but for some reason twitter did. 

Teenagers will be banned from using Tiktok, Snapchat, Instagram, X and Reddit until the age of 16 in Australia

[jpanhalt]

When China invades, you'll hardly notice the change.

The last time China successfully invaded anywhere was Tibet in 1951.
Their Invasion of Vietnam in 1979 led to a bloody nose for the PLA.

1) That was hyperbole.
2) Remember the evacuation of Saigon?  All Vietnam today is communist and a satellite of China.   Do you really think all of that stuff marked "made in Vietnam" is really made in Vietnam and is not simply relabeled to avoid the stigma of made in China?

[EEVblog]

Well eevblog did not make the initial ban list.   Funnily enough neither did facebook but for some reason twitter did. 

Twitter/X is the only social media platform that matters for political discourse. It is where all the politicans post, it is where all news is made and debated and shared. Of course they want it entirely regulated and every single person identified.
No government can survive the free speech that Elon has brought, they have to either regulate it, or kill it.

[jpanhalt]

Well eevblog did not make the initial ban list.   Funnily enough neither did facebook but for some reason twitter did. 

Teenagers will be banned from using Tiktok, Snapchat, Instagram, X and Reddit until the age of 16 in Australia

I am amazed that such a great country with so similar a heritage as the US has gone that direction.  Some people assume our Bill of Rights, which along with the post Civil War 14th amendment ("Equal Protection") are often cited in cases involving individual liberties,  was a given during our Constitutional Convention.  It was not.  Opinions and sides differed strongly.  One side contended the Bill of Rights was simply duplicative of what the new Constitution already said.  Jefferson supported the Bill of Rights, and it was eventually passed.  If you are interested, those rights did not immediately apply to all states (See: Incorporation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights ).  We still struggle with that "quirk."

I was ignorant about the Australian Constitution and searched Google last week to ask whether it included freedom of speech and expression like our 1st Amendment ensures.  Google responded that it did not and added that those freedoms were considered to be covered in other sections.  That immediately reminded me of the argument against our Bill of Rights.  Thank goodness Jefferson and his allies prevailed.  Australia is not alone, and Canada has similar issues.  I hope both are able to get it resolved.  As for England, we are not  governed by it anymore.

[.RC.]

Twitter/X is the only social media platform that matters for political discourse. It is where all the politicans post, it is where all news is made and debated and shared. Of course they want it entirely regulated and every single person identified.
No government can survive the free speech that Elon has brought, they have to either regulate it, or kill it.

Could just be the trojan horse to go after Twitter. "Won't someone think of the children!!" is an often used argument to create some seemingly innocent laws.  Terrorists is another common one. We even just saw a group of complete morons dress up in black and chant "white power" then at least in Queensland new laws were created giving the government minister the ability to outlaw any group or emblem they see fit.

I would not have thought teenagers would be using twitter that much.

I am amazed that such a great country with so similar a heritage as the US has gone that direction. 

I do not think deep down there are that many similarities between Australia and the USA these days.

Australia is far more socialist then the USA. Australian culture has a disdain for successful wealthy people, even if they are entirely self made and started with little.  While you will see the USA flag everywhere in the USA, you will struggle to see an Australian Flag in Australia.

The term "The lucky country" is probably most valid right now.   It is an old saying from a long time ago to describe Australia.   It is lucky in that it has incredible easily exploitable wealth in the form of minerals and natural resources that the country can afford to be run by second rate people and the people prosper by achieving so little.

[themadhippy]

and a satellite of China.   Do you really think all of that stuff marked "made in Vietnam" is really made in Vietnam and is not simply relabeled to avoid the stigma of made in China?

WALOB

[coppice]

When China invades, you'll hardly notice the change.

The last time China successfully invaded anywhere was Tibet in 1951.
Their Invasion of Vietnam in 1979 led to a bloody nose for the PLA.

1) That was hyperbole.
2) Remember the evacuation of Saigon?  All Vietnam today is communist and a satellite of China.   Do you really think all of that stuff marked "made in Vietnam" is really made in Vietnam and is not simply relabeled to avoid the stigma of made in China?

In 1979 there was a generation of experienced fighters in Vietnam, and there wasn't in China. It feels like that had a lot to do with the outcome. A war now would tend to be between two parties who haven't known real fighting for a generation or two. There are a lot of Chinese assembly factories in the north of Vietnam now, so I guess the Chinese invasion finally worked out.

The commonest thing in Vietnam is "assembled in Vietnam from imported components", often emblazened on a product's packaging. Final assembly is where most of the labour goes these days, and Vietnam has a lot of low cost but well educated people. The only reason Vietnam has not become a really massive assembly shop is its government tends to keep changing direction, and the foreign investors get screwed and back off. People like Samsung and Epson are probably big enough to kick ass if the Vietnamese government tries to screw them, so they seem to have really entrenched themselves there. I used to know a few smaller people who just had to cut their losses and move on.

[thm_w]

*another example of "weasel words" is state drink driving laws.  In one state it says such and such about being in control of a car, bike, scooter, horse, camel, emu, etc on public roads, then it pulls in the term "or elsewhere", which is defined as everywhere else.  Which means if you were sitting in your car in the garage listening to the radio, drinking your third beer and you have a blood alcohol level of over 0.05 (or zero if you were sitting in a truck listening to the radio), you can be done for drink driving.

I get what you are saying, and it probably should be written another way, but sometimes it is useful. eg you get drunk in a bar, walk out and smash your car into 10 other cars in a parking lot. Its not a "public road" but you should still face the consequences of drunk driving.

[John B]

Australia seems quite comparable in the political landscape to Canada, especially with the commonwealth association. The fact is Australia doesn't have freedom of speech. There's worryingly few politicians that actually respect the idea when it starts to become inconvenient to their party aspirations.

The first amendment in the US has been shown to be a piper tiger if it isn't enforced, eg the state is forbidden from using third parties to violate those rights, like 3 letter agencies pressuring social media companies to censor. But nonetheless there still is an additional roadblock to full on censorship.

I listened to the statement of a minister or senator that flipped his vote on the misinformation bill (to opposing it). What disappointed me is that he only opposed the bill on procedure, not on premise. Ie the bill was "flawed" in execution rather than rejecting the notion that it is or should be the governments purview to control public discussion. Keep in mind this is all in response to the public opposition to government policies in regards to covid, and a recent failed referendum.

On the social media ban, I accept there's going to be downsides to young teenagers having access to social media, but what is worse is normalising the idea that people need permission or authorisation to participate in free communication.

[.RC.]

I get what you are saying, and it probably should be written another way, but sometimes it is useful. eg you get drunk in a bar, walk out and smash your car into 10 other cars in a parking lot. Its not a "public road" but you should still face the consequences of drunk driving.

Those places are classed as public areas though.

Your garage is not as the general public does not have access to it.

[vk6zgo]

Twitter/X is the only social media platform that matters for political discourse. It is where all the politicans post, it is where all news is made and debated and shared. Of course they want it entirely regulated and every single person identified.
No government can survive the free speech that Elon has brought, they have to either regulate it, or kill it.

Could just be the trojan horse to go after Twitter. "Won't someone think of the children!!" is an often used argument to create some seemingly innocent laws.  Terrorists is another common one. We even just saw a group of complete morons dress up in black and chant "white power" then at least in Queensland new laws were created giving the government minister the ability to outlaw any group or emblem they see fit.

I would not have thought teenagers would be using twitter that much.

I am amazed that such a great country with so similar a heritage as the US has gone that direction. 

I do not think deep down there are that many similarities between Australia and the USA these days.

Australia is far more socialist then the USA. Australian culture has a disdain for successful wealthy people, even if they are entirely self made and started with little.  While you will see the USA flag everywhere in the USA, you will struggle to see an Australian Flag in Australia.

The term "The lucky country" is probably most valid right now.   It is an old saying from a long time ago to describe Australia.   It is lucky in that it has incredible easily exploitable wealth in the form of minerals and natural resources that the country can afford to be run by second rate people and the people prosper by achieving so little.

We don't much like wealthy people because wealth can so often be built on deceit & unethical behaviour.
So often rich people feted by the media "cut & run" when their business falls on bad times, taken as much as they can, including in some cases superannuation entitlements.

Remember Chris Skase?
The silly bugger, to avoid coming back to Australia to face court, pretended to have Emphysema, & whilst doing so, distracted attention from the real, deadly illness he had.

The Mineral companies would not agree about how "easily exploitable" the minerals & natural resources are.

As to flag waving, No, we aren't like the Americans or the Brits either---the flag is a symbol, nothing else.

If I want to see Australia, I can just go outside, I don't need a piece of cloth!

The USA, in many ways is still a revolutionary country.
Following the Revolution, they were worried, like many such countries about "counterrevolutionaries", hence  all the emphasis upon the flag, Constitution, etc, which has become tradition.

Australia evolved from colonies & the Brits, having learnt their lesson, fairly gracefully yielded to Australians' wish for Nationhood.
So it went that our govt is based mostly on the evolved form of the Westminster System of the late 1890s, rather than the much more archaic one of 100 plus years earlier.

[vk6zgo]

When China invades, you'll hardly notice the change.

The last time China successfully invaded anywhere was Tibet in 1951.
Their Invasion of Vietnam in 1979 led to a bloody nose for the PLA.

1) That was hyperbole.
2) Remember the evacuation of Saigon?  All Vietnam today is communist and a satellite of China.   Do you really think all of that stuff marked "made in Vietnam" is really made in Vietnam and is not simply relabeled to avoid the stigma of made in China?

Yes, it was the communist State of Vietnam which China attempted to invade.
A country can be communist & not a "satellite of China".(The fantasy of "monolithic communism" was BS in the 1950s & still is.)

Most people would more readily buy "made in China", rather than "made in Vietnam", as the latter is much more of an unknown quantity for manufactured goods.

[vk6zgo]

Well eevblog did not make the initial ban list.   Funnily enough neither did facebook but for some reason twitter did. 

Twitter/X is the only social media platform that matters for political discourse. It is where all the politicans post, it is where all news is made and debated and shared. Of course they want it entirely regulated and every single person identified.
No government can survive the free speech that Elon has brought, they have to either regulate it, or kill it.

I can vote my government in or out.
When did I get a vote on Elon?

[EEVblog]

Well eevblog did not make the initial ban list.   Funnily enough neither did facebook but for some reason twitter did. 

Twitter/X is the only social media platform that matters for political discourse. It is where all the politicans post, it is where all news is made and debated and shared. Of course they want it entirely regulated and every single person identified.
No government can survive the free speech that Elon has brought, they have to either regulate it, or kill it.

I can vote my government in or out.
When did I get a vote on Elon?

You got a vote on the platform when you decided to use it or not.
Elon set up an open and accountable free speech platform where everyone is equal.

[Tation]

You got a vote on the platform when you decided to use it or not.

Even if a majority of citizens in a country do not use X, does not remove X in such country. Plain BS.

Elon set up an open and accountable free speech platform where everyone is equal.

Been on X for just 2 months. Followed just two local, academic, accounts, but received suggested content from Musk & Trump. Everyone equal? Utter BS.

[magic]

I see that Dave has been radicalized


You guys are just envious that you can't afford to buy a website which tells people whom to vote for.
The only thing I don't understand - if you are so poor, why would you care about democracy at all?

[vk6zgo]

Well eevblog did not make the initial ban list.   Funnily enough neither did facebook but for some reason twitter did. 

Twitter/X is the only social media platform that matters for political discourse. It is where all the politicans post, it is where all news is made and debated and shared. Of course they want it entirely regulated and every single person identified.
No government can survive the free speech that Elon has brought, they have to either regulate it, or kill it.

I can vote my government in or out.
When did I get a vote on Elon?

You got a vote on the platform when you decided to use it or not.
Elon set up an open and accountable free speech platform where everyone is equal.

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.

I found no source of great truths there, in fact, it was pretty much like the crazier threads on Facebook, & even the comments on "Microsoft Start" news, although without the really weird "Community Guidelines" of the latter.

[themadhippy]

the only decent use of twatter/x  ive found is to call out companys for crap service,they tend to respond quicker than if you go through the email/customer services route.

[coppice]

Most people would more readily buy "made in China", rather than "made in Vietnam", as the latter is much more of an unknown quantity for manufactured goods.

Its interesting how that goes. Lots of Epson printers say something like "Assembled in Vietnam from components made in Shenzhen" on the box.

[DimitriP]

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.

[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.

[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.