Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian politics.

Lupi said:
because they're capitalising on weaponising parents emotions before the public figure out the details

the reality is this will require a digital biometric age verification system for all citizens to access social media
Click to expand...

Did I not agree with you?

I said it was rushed.
 
erogenouszone said:
I was at that Australia Cup game and I had a great time personally. Cracking atmosphere. Didn't see any trimmed short moustaches. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
i was walking outside the stadium after the game, and said to my friend, pregame went well, the atmosphere during the game was electric, and it went incident free for 16k people.

next minute on the news for the next 3 years lol.
 
Pasquali said:
How do they define social media site? Are sites like reddit or this included?
Click to expand...
That's up to the discretion of the eSafety Karen who'll be given carte blanche to determine the technical application of the legislation.

It will come down to what's practical to implement from a technical point of view. Message board forums will most likely fly under the radar for the foreseeable future. Reddit I don't know, that's in the grey area zone as its quite big but not classified as social media.
 
Both the misinformation bill and social media are both completely unnecessary and I say that as a parent.
 
Lupi said:
this is how they plan to deal with VPNs...
Click to expand...




@Pasquali , I wonder if small platforms like this website forum will be required to ascertain if users are under 16. Sheesh ... just going on some of the comments people make, even if their chronological-age is over 16, what about maturity-age? :p🤣😲

Seriously, though. Football is for all ages, particularly children and teenagers, and I would assume - from the maturity level of many comments on this forum -- that people could be under 16 masquerading as adults. How are small websites going to police the age requirement, for example, Muz and tsf ... Muz claims he's a consultant with experience in multi-storey construction, and tsf claims to have a university arts degree ... but what if ... the law requires indication of being over 16. 😸😙😁

And even more seriously, what are the legal consequences to small websites - presumably with no artificial intelligence algorithms - to figure out who are the under 16's ?
 
Last edited:
johnsmith said:


@Pasquali , I wonder if small platforms like this website forum will be required to ascertain if users are under 16. Sheesh ... just going on some of the comments people make, even if their chronological-age is over 16, what about maturity-age? :p🤣😲

Seriously, though. Football is for all ages, particularly children and teenagers, and I would assume - from the maturity level of many comments on this forum -- that people could be under 16 masquerading as adults. How are small websites going to police the age requirement, for example, Muz and tsf ... Muz claims he's a consultant with experience in multi-storey construction, and tsf claims to have a university arts degree ... but what if ... the law requires indication of being over 16. 😸😙😁

And even more seriously, what are the legal consequences to small websites - presumably with no artificial intelligence algorithms - to figure out who are the under 16's ?
Click to expand...


The government doesn't care about small websites.

Once again, this isn't about saving the children, its designed to stifle dissent by unmasking accounts on large social media platforms.
 
I've been a high school teacher for over a decade and I don't think many understand the negative impact that social media has on children. There definitely needs to be some laws in place to protect minors from others and sometimes even themselves. It is the same principal as driving, drinking and smoking.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
I've been a high school teacher for over a decade and I don't think many understand the negative impact that social media has on children. There definitely needs to be some laws in place to protect minors from others and sometimes even themselves. It is the same principal as driving, drinking and smoking.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details of course. Very tricky to craft legislation around this.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
I've been a high school teacher for over a decade and I don't think many understand the negative impact that social media has on children. There definitely needs to be some laws in place to protect minors from others and sometimes even themselves. It is the same principal as driving, drinking and smoking.
Click to expand...

Parents being weaponised by the government is nothing new. There's ways to adapt to new technology without the government creating bans (which affect everybody not just children.)

The downside here are all the isolated children in remote areas who rely on social media for interaction.

There's a reason this was rushed through without debate. The government/uniparty knew it was pulling a fast one and didn't want the penny to drop on the majority of Australians which a debate would've enabled.
 
theFOOTBALLlover said:
I've been a high school teacher for over a decade and I don't think many understand the negative impact that social media has on children. There definitely needs to be some laws in place to protect minors from others and sometimes even themselves. It is the same principal as driving, drinking and smoking.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on how social media have negatively impacted children.

I don't doubt you at all, but just curious to hear it from the view point of a teacher.
 
Lupi said:
Parents being weaponised by the government is nothing new. There's ways to adapt to new technology without the government creating bans (which affect everybody not just children.)

The downside here are all the isolated children in remote areas who rely on social media for interaction.

There's a reason this was rushed through without debate. The government/uniparty knew it was pulling a fast one and didn't want the penny to drop on the majority of Australians which a debate would've enabled.
Click to expand...
Thats a poor take Lupi... "isolated children" relying on social media for interaction that is... Agree or disagree with unlimited social media access for our children all you want... Fact is that age restrictions aren't the "boogeyman" here.. NOBODY is weaponizing parents....
 
It's quite wild what social media companies can get away with. They are awash with copyright, illegal content, or much worse. At the tame end of the scale, how many fake ads with images or people used without their approval...and they make bank off it.




'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top