I don’t think they are evil. A bunch of people with good intentions who didn’t understand the problem are trying to solve it with a gut feeling rather than analysis and evidence. It’s really disappoi ting that they would waste so much of our time and money like this.
Good intentions without the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent is still evil.
The main problem with all of these internet surveillance tools being marketed as ways to protect children is that people are engaging with them on that basis.
As far as I’m concerned they haven’t done anything to establish that they actually intend to protect children or that this is a reasonable way to do it. This seems like a solution to a different problem that ignores all of the problems it creates.
Parents should be responsible for their children. A random website creator shouldn’t have to be responsible for your children.
Websites aren’t stores where people walk in off of a public street. They are services that people reach out to and engage with specifically and intentionally. If we can address the non-consensual non-intentionality part of internet tracking and surveillance a lot of this stuff goes away. So maybe rather than regulating the website to protect your children we should be regulating the website to protect consent.
There is a problem with social media addiction but the solution isn’t restricting teens from it. The solution, as with most things, is education. Educating the kids, educating their parents and making sure they both have the tools available to them to make smart decisions.
Surely there’s always time for both the kids and parents to set aside to learn every new technology and the appropriate controls to restrict them.
And when someone says it makes far more sense to just not give their kids said technology until they are older, we have people like you arguing on behalf of the technology.
Aww poor little facebook, we dont want to hurt its fee-fees! Let’s just give it another chance! I’m sure we can trust it this time if we just learn how to use it right!
How am I arguing on behalf of the technology? I want people to understand the technology so they know how to protect themselves effectively if they use it and so can make effective decisions on how their kids interact with it.
The technology sucks, but the technology is not going away and any fucking moron can bypass the age verification. If you think age verification is stopping teenagers from using tiktok then you’re an idiot. I’m arguing that the implemented solution is not in fact anything close to a solution, and that pulling this thread and trying to implement something in the same vein that would actually work is a terrible idea because it fucks the privacy of every Australian on the internet, even more so than the current solution.
Maybe, just maybe, parents shouldn’t let their kids in awful places, and also awful places shouldnt let kids in. Turns out parental controls are bullshit, and the only real answer is RTFM or dont use it at all. A business and its customers dont exist without each other, so the blame is on both sides.
All that said, the government definitely could help the parental understand and controls side of thing too using regulation.
That’s a bit like saying ‘there is a problem with smack/nicotine/alcohol addiction, but the solution is not restriction, it’s education’. You can educate all you want, but very clever people make a lot of money by saying ‘fuck your education’.
But we still prohibit children from having drugs. Legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, cannabis) are illegal to sell to children, even though we can legally sell them to adults.
Great examples include making people wait until adulthood to smoke nicotine or cannabis, or to drink alcohol.
I mean, I agree with you, but highschool is a thing… these laws are basically useless to my knowledge. I think about 50% of my grade had smoked weed by tenth grade, and half again were addicted to nicotine by 12th. The only reason I didn’t fall victim to those (as many of my friends did), is because I was educated, by my parents, from an early age, about addiction and these substances. I never even tried them, because I knew better, thus never got addicted.
You say that, but evidence shows its not a working solution. Its a piece of legislation that doesn’t actually achieve anything close to the desired outcome of stopping a significant number of people under 16 from accessing social media. Further than that, there isn’t an actual way to make this work without banning VPNs and implementing a Chinese style great internet filter.
Nicotine, Cannabis and alcohol are all banned in Australia for under 18s and you are kidding yourself if you think that has had any significant impact on stopping under 18s from getting their mits on them.
Well, thats what you get when non-tech people try to regulate tech. At least we have correctly identified a problem, and are now trying to solve it.
Tech companies taking advantage of regulators lack of knowledge to continue abusing their customers is a different problem.
This solution might not work but we will learn and try something else or refine it until it does work, or until social media somehow isn’t predatory and doesnt need the guard rails.
I don’t know how you solve problems, but I certainly don’t go all in on the first highly expensive dumb idea I have without researching the fuck out of it first. If our politicians are listening to anything the the social media companies are saying and not assuming everything they say is an attempt to make more money for themselves then we have much bigger problems, namely the suckers we have elected.
Refining this solution is a terrible idea. It flat out doesn’t work, its a non-starter. Prohibition has never worked effectively. The only path this leads to is pushing even more of Australian population’s personal data into honey pots and breaking our financial system.
I don’t think they are evil. A bunch of people with good intentions who didn’t understand the problem are trying to solve it with a gut feeling rather than analysis and evidence. It’s really disappoi ting that they would waste so much of our time and money like this.
Good intentions without the spirit of cooperation or respect for consent is still evil.
The main problem with all of these internet surveillance tools being marketed as ways to protect children is that people are engaging with them on that basis.
As far as I’m concerned they haven’t done anything to establish that they actually intend to protect children or that this is a reasonable way to do it. This seems like a solution to a different problem that ignores all of the problems it creates.
Parents should be responsible for their children. A random website creator shouldn’t have to be responsible for your children.
Websites aren’t stores where people walk in off of a public street. They are services that people reach out to and engage with specifically and intentionally. If we can address the non-consensual non-intentionality part of internet tracking and surveillance a lot of this stuff goes away. So maybe rather than regulating the website to protect your children we should be regulating the website to protect consent.
There is no problem to solve that hasn’t already been addressed with parental controls.
There is a problem with social media addiction but the solution isn’t restricting teens from it. The solution, as with most things, is education. Educating the kids, educating their parents and making sure they both have the tools available to them to make smart decisions.
Surely there’s always time for both the kids and parents to set aside to learn every new technology and the appropriate controls to restrict them.
And when someone says it makes far more sense to just not give their kids said technology until they are older, we have people like you arguing on behalf of the technology.
Aww poor little facebook, we dont want to hurt its fee-fees! Let’s just give it another chance! I’m sure we can trust it this time if we just learn how to use it right!
How am I arguing on behalf of the technology? I want people to understand the technology so they know how to protect themselves effectively if they use it and so can make effective decisions on how their kids interact with it.
The technology sucks, but the technology is not going away and any fucking moron can bypass the age verification. If you think age verification is stopping teenagers from using tiktok then you’re an idiot. I’m arguing that the implemented solution is not in fact anything close to a solution, and that pulling this thread and trying to implement something in the same vein that would actually work is a terrible idea because it fucks the privacy of every Australian on the internet, even more so than the current solution.
Maybe, just maybe, parents shouldn’t let their kids in awful places, and also awful places shouldnt let kids in. Turns out parental controls are bullshit, and the only real answer is RTFM or dont use it at all. A business and its customers dont exist without each other, so the blame is on both sides.
All that said, the government definitely could help the parental understand and controls side of thing too using regulation.
That’s a bit like saying ‘there is a problem with smack/nicotine/alcohol addiction, but the solution is not restriction, it’s education’. You can educate all you want, but very clever people make a lot of money by saying ‘fuck your education’.
Drug prohibition has also historically not worked out very well for anyone except prison industry shareholders
But we still prohibit children from having drugs. Legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, cannabis) are illegal to sell to children, even though we can legally sell them to adults.
You can’t download weed with a phone, not a good comparison
Well not with that attitude you cant
If any attitude could make it happen I would have succeeded by now at least once
You can’t educate someone out of an addiction. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding about addiction…
No but you can educate their support networks and build other systems to help them work through their addiction.
Or we could focus on preventing the addiction to begin with.
Great examples include making people wait until adulthood to smoke nicotine or cannabis, or to drink alcohol.
I mean, I agree with you, but highschool is a thing… these laws are basically useless to my knowledge. I think about 50% of my grade had smoked weed by tenth grade, and half again were addicted to nicotine by 12th. The only reason I didn’t fall victim to those (as many of my friends did), is because I was educated, by my parents, from an early age, about addiction and these substances. I never even tried them, because I knew better, thus never got addicted.
You say that, but evidence shows its not a working solution. Its a piece of legislation that doesn’t actually achieve anything close to the desired outcome of stopping a significant number of people under 16 from accessing social media. Further than that, there isn’t an actual way to make this work without banning VPNs and implementing a Chinese style great internet filter.
Nicotine, Cannabis and alcohol are all banned in Australia for under 18s and you are kidding yourself if you think that has had any significant impact on stopping under 18s from getting their mits on them.
Well, thats what you get when non-tech people try to regulate tech. At least we have correctly identified a problem, and are now trying to solve it.
Tech companies taking advantage of regulators lack of knowledge to continue abusing their customers is a different problem.
This solution might not work but we will learn and try something else or refine it until it does work, or until social media somehow isn’t predatory and doesnt need the guard rails.
I don’t know how you solve problems, but I certainly don’t go all in on the first highly expensive dumb idea I have without researching the fuck out of it first. If our politicians are listening to anything the the social media companies are saying and not assuming everything they say is an attempt to make more money for themselves then we have much bigger problems, namely the suckers we have elected.
Refining this solution is a terrible idea. It flat out doesn’t work, its a non-starter. Prohibition has never worked effectively. The only path this leads to is pushing even more of Australian population’s personal data into honey pots and breaking our financial system.