I know this has been covered but this is good analysis from a high school student.
It’s not meant to benefit young people. If it was they wouldn’t have now explicitly excluded gambling ads from the act. Kids won’t be able to access the fixtures page of their hockey club on Facebook, but can have Bet365 ads rammed down their throats. This act is not about protecting kids. It’s a push to easily, accurately tie everyone’s online presence to their myID.
That’s exactly right. I’m so fucking disappointed in this government. Over and over they fuck it up.
That’s because it’s not why it was implemented.
Media Watch covered this.
It was driven by News Corp as payback since Meta stopped news articles and paying gravy to News Corp under the media bargaining agreement.
was this written by ai?
The statistics show that much of young people’s declining mental health is caused by social issues such as the cost-of-living crisis, housing insecurity and fears about the climate emergency, much of which can be sheeted home to government policies.
really 10 year olds worried about cost of living and housing??
Cost of living has an enormous impact on youth, poor parents are under significantly increased stress which results in not just the inability to afford necessities but also increases domestic violence, divorce rates and suicides.
They sure as fuck are when it means they only have one meal a day and can’t afford to join a sport club.
and you believe the majority of kids are having one meal a day?
Who said anything about majority? Even 1 is too many.
the original article:
Labor’s social media ban will not benefit young people
the point we are actually discussing right now:
The statistics show that much of young people’s declining mental health is caused by social issues such as the cost-of-living crisis, housing insecurity and fears about the climate emergency, much of which can be sheeted home to government policies.
Besides, the point was pretty obvious, I thought. They might not care about it directly, but their mental health is affected by it just the same. When it affects their wellbeing directly, through their access to the food they need to learn and grow. When it affects the opportunities they have in life, especially if they might see others around them who do have opportunities.
That’s without going into the fact that parents can pick up on their parents’ distress more than they often get given credit for.
I’ve met primary school kids who have an interest in social issues. I’m surprised you haven’t.
I used to be one of those. It kind of makes me chuckle when I see comments like above, I used to write similarly from when I was about 14. I had many people online accuse me of being a fake child, too (their words)
A lot of people seem to have this idea that being a child or teenager is on the same level as being a toddler just learning how to talk. Like there’s some kind of magical switch that gets flicked when you turn 18 that takes you from babbling to writing long winded and formal emails with as much jargon as you can muster up. It’s really weird, but I think it’s probably a combination of jealousy and feeling irrelevant and out of touch for some folks
Sure is annoying as the person on the other end though
Where does it say they’re 10? Generally, high school doesn’t even start until 12/13.
ban is for under 16s
i also strongly doubt that social media is doing much to help the kids who are stressing about those things
What are you on about
How does the social media ban being targetted at U/16s = the author being 10?
i didn’t say the author is 10, i picked a random age
i could have said really 6 years olds stressing over property prices? yeah right
