Australia - N.Korea-style restrictions??

[Sarkus]

Ah, the click-bait headline!

Anyhoo - seems Australia are the first to outright ban under-16s from social media!

Australia passes landmark social media ban for children under 16

The ban, among the toughest in the world, has broad public support, but it has been criticized by experts who say it could have unintended negative consequences.

www.nbcnews.com

Will be interesting to see how they propose doing this, and the inevitable fallout. VPN providers will undoubtedly be rubbing their hands in glee, as it's suggested the government will not prosecute those who break the rules - and VPN is the obvious solution to those who wish to do so. It also doesn't include web-based chat-sites like 4Chan, which is like locking the door to the room full of angry dogs while leaving the front-door open for the wolf!
Anyhoo - lots of potential for unforeseen consequences. Something to keep an eye on.

Any of our Antipodean neighbours have a view on this?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Child-friendly phone" I suspect. Limited access, probably adjustable by the parents if not bought with the limits set. 911 still available.

 

[exchemist]

Ah, the click-bait headline!

Anyhoo - seems Australia are the first to outright ban under-16s from social media!

Australia passes landmark social media ban for children under 16

The ban, among the toughest in the world, has broad public support, but it has been criticized by experts who say it could have unintended negative consequences.

www.nbcnews.com

Will be interesting to see how they propose doing this, and the inevitable fallout. VPN providers will undoubtedly be rubbing their hands in glee, as it's suggested the government will not prosecute those who break the rules - and VPN is the obvious solution to those who wish to do so. It also doesn't include web-based chat-sites like 4Chan, which is like locking the door to the room full of angry dogs while leaving the front-door open for the wolf!
Anyhoo - lots of potential for unforeseen consequences. Something to keep an eye on.

Any of our Antipodean neighbours have a view on this?

I think there is a real possibility that, 20 years from now, social media will be treated as cigarettes are today. Their ill effects are becoming more obvious and serious by the day.

 

[Sarkus]

As Jimmy Carr joked: imagine in 1990 taking a photo of your breakfast and showing your friends... they'd think you were mental! 30 years later... Instagram!

 

[exchemist]

As Jimmy Carr joked: imagine in 1990 taking a photo of your breakfast and showing your friends... they'd think you were mental! 30 years later... Instagram!

Yeah, and the joke is, you are........mental!.....................

 

[James R]

Any of our Antipodean neighbours have a view on this?

It's unworkable and also a bad idea for lots of reasons.

It also misses the wood for the trees. What is really needed is for the big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms. If they won't, then they need to be regulated until they do.

 

[Ken Fabian]

As an Australian I am... surprised, as much by the conservative LNP opposition supporting it as the slightly less conservative ALP proposing it.

What Australian politicians know is that community concern about children accessing inappropriate websites and other online dangers is very real and age restrictions for access have strong popular support - in principle. I guess we will wait and see how it works out in practice. I expect we will see court challenges; money from marketing aimed at kids is at stake. Can't have the advertising industry's ability to influence children's spending (and the nag power to influence adult spending) on unnecessary crap infringed.

 

[Tiassa]

It also misses the wood for the trees. What is really needed is for the big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms. If they won't, then they need to be regulated until they do.

So, then, it seems like what they actually need is a better bill?

History lesson, from half a world away: The expectation of self-regulation has failed so many times in the past that, these days, it reads like crackpottery. Waiting for "big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms" will be no more successful than waiting for big companies to stop polluting, price-fixing, book-cooking. Insurance companies won't stop recission; software companies won't stop surveillance; in our history of mulligans since Buttonwood, in 1792, financial companies won't stop wrecking the economy for graft.

Expecting Zuckerberg or Musk, for instance, "to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms", is an exercise in either futility or gullibility, take your pick.

It's not quite waiting for Godot, but more like asking other people to wait for Godot. In this case, waiting for big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms is waiting for something we've already been told isn't going to happen.

 

[James R]

Did I say anything about waiting for the big social media companies to regulate themselves? I think not.

 

[Pinball1970]

It's not quite waiting for Godot, but more like asking other people to wait for Godot. In this case, waiting for big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms is waiting for something we've already been told isn't going to happen.

Until the stats are rammed down their throats regarding on line abuse, children accessing inappropriate sites then acting things out or taking their own life.
Already happened? Yes.
When it affects revenue then things may start to happen.

Cigarettes and alcohol have had to change in terms of marketing messages restrictions and the law over the years.
There is hope for the internet.

 

[Tiassa]

Cigarettes and alcohol have had to change in terms of marketing messages restrictions and the law over the years.
There is hope for the internet.

True, but I would point out that result did not come from self-regulation, but, rather, force of law.

(Self-regulation story: Filtered cigarettes arrived around 1937, but didn't catch on with American smokers. About fifteen years later, a series of articles ran in the U.S. describing the carcinogenic risk associated with cigarettes. Around that time, Lorillard introduced what is recognized as the advent of filtered cigarettes, and for about four years enjoyed market popularity for trying to mitigate the cancer risk by having smokers pull their dose through an asbestos filter.)

• • •​

Did I say anything about waiting for the big social media companies to regulate themselves?

Well, there was the part where you said, "What is really needed is for the big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms." I mean, you do realize you are describing self-regulation, there?

Moreover, your point of contrast reflects that reading: "If they won't, then they need to be regulated until they do."

So, yes, James, you did say something about waiting for the big social media companies to regulate themselves.

So ...

I think not.

... yeah, maybe just, uh ... sure, whatever you say.

 

[Sarkus]

So, yes, James, you did say something about waiting for the big social media companies to regulate themselves.

Even if one (somehow) interprets his post as not doing that, the question following his subsequent response to you then becomes "so what?". I mean, in the first sentence you simply summarised (as a rhetorical question) that he was suggesting a better Bill, since the Bill is looking for self-regulation. And the rest of your post is just an explanation of why you think expecting large SM companies to self-regulate (as sought in the Bill) is a pipe-dream. So you're just agreeing with him (at least if one starts with the premise that SM companies need to take responsibility etc), and posting on-topic commentary.
So either way, his comment to you garners a "huh?"

 

[Tiassa]

It also doesn't include web-based chat-sites like 4Chan ....

In the U.S. we occasionally hear murmur and buzz about whether to treat the internet like a utility, such as the telephone.

Just imagine the implications, whether it's headline social media like Metaface, TwitteX, or Instagraft, or sites like 4Chan, Reddit, and even Sciforums.

Start with the basics: You're not supposed to use the phone for fraud or other crime.

There's a reason why legislators are grasping after narrow opportunities. Failing to regulate "social media" sounds a lot less complicated than regulating the entire internet.

 

[James R]

Well, there was the part where you said, "What is really needed is for the big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms." I mean, you do realize you are describing self-regulation, there?

And you're telling me you didn't read the very next sentence in my post.

I don't believe you.

 

[Tiassa]

And you're telling me you didn't read the very next sentence in my post.

No, James, not at all. That's just your make-believe. After all, just look what I said about that sentence. No, really, look:

Well, there was the part where you said, "What is really needed is for the big social media companies to start taking some responsibility for what goes on on their platforms." I mean, you do realize you are describing self-regulation, there?

Moreover, your point of contrast reflects that reading: "If they won't, then they need to be regulated until they do."

You shouldn't tell lies, James.