geteilt von: lemmy.zip/post/53982034
High Court challenge says law imposing ban is ‘grossly excessive’ and infringes on ‘constitutional right of freedom of political communication’
WE. WANT. OUR. CRACK ROCK BACK!
Australia | Teenagers sue over social media ban for ‘violating their right to communicate’
Submitted 3 weeks ago by schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de to australia@aussie.zone
Comments
WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
dockedatthewrongworf@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
What I find fascinating about this whole thing is the almost universal simping that has occurred in defence of these large websites like Facebook, Twitter (X), Reddit etc. I find it amusing that people who would decry using these large websites suddenly need to defend them.
It’s pretty depressing to see how many people have been ignoring the genuine harm that can occur using social media. During recent filings in the US, Meta hid and defunded research that showed a causal relationship with mental health and social media usage in under 13’s along a myriad of other issues identified.
These new restrictions aren’t perfect and really should be reviewed in the future, however something does need to happen and asking the industry to self regulate has resulted in no meaningful changes occurring.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
It’s pretty depressing to see how many people have been ignoring the genuine harm that can occur using social media.
I feel like most people agree that it can be harmful. The problem is more that they don’t understand enough about how social media works to realise that it’s a structural design problem with the technology itself and one that can only start to be addressed through government regulation. To a lot of people it becomes solely a personal responsibility problem. If a child has an addiction it’s solely the parent’s fault for allowing their child to become addicted. If an adult has an addiction then it’s solely their own fault for letting themselves get addicted. When it gets framed as an individual problem rather than a structural one, it’s easy to oppose any and all legislation on the basis of “well none of us have a problem so why do we have to pay for a solution/be punished?”. It’s difficult to understand how easily psychological manipulation can occur if you don’t understand the techniques being used.
Another, related, problem in this particular case is that a lot of people still seem to think the main problems are the more sensational things like child predators or violent content. Whilst those are very real and serious concerns, they are pretty extreme examples and getting fixated on them makes it very easy to ignore the more insidious effects of social media usage on developing brains. I guess that’s one of my main problems with the current implementation; it’s based around account ownership and some platforms like YouTube still use an algorithm and build a shadow profile with recommendations based on what you’ve viewed even if you’re logged out. For some of these platforms, the current legislation is going to do little to combat addiction (beyond signalling to parents that this stuff is bad, which is definitely important).
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
I don’t know about you, but in every circle I’m in the concern is just the abysmal implementation that not only doesn’t address the actual problems but kind of makes them worse, and it’d be really easy to write a better policy that properly addresses that without any ID being involved.
Tau@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
It’s pretty depressing to see how many people in favour of this are prepared to make everyone suffer invasive demands for personal information in order to use a good portion of the internet. These laws haven’t even come into force yet and they’ve already caused harm in the form of tens of thousands of leaked IDs, to say nothing of the problems with further reducing anonymity of discussion in an increasingly authoritarian world.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Whats the story behind the leaked IDs
hanrahan@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Have to fo old school.with SMS
Or any one of a zillion other ways like.signal or whatsapp or Telegram or whatever.
No1@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
It will be a game of whack-a-mole.
They’ll just keep adding to their list of apps requiring ID.
And those apps you list are next
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
It’s a blunt tool, sure…because it’s not intended to target people with the resources and wherewithal to organize a lawsuit against the government.
Problem is that the vast vast vast majority of kids under 16 see literally no upside from social media.
x00z@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Grow up addicts. You can communicate with tons of other apps.
vga@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Would be more logical to just ban smart phones from teenagers. They can use dumb phones thus not violating their right to communicate.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
I mean, i actually can’t see why this isn’t a more serious option.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
There’s absolutely no way this goes anywhere considering they can’t even vote for another 3 years.
Nath@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Yes. Explain to KP Oli how messing with Gen Z’s Internet has no bearing on politics, since they’re not voting for years.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
The ban doesn’t really affect Gen Z, they are a lot older than you think. It’s only the tail end of that generation who will have to wait a few years.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Good on em, parents should be regulating internet access and not the govt
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Social media is not the internet.
Social media is a privatized mass-spying and manipulation tool that directly and intentionally destroys the mental health of its users.
Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Are you aware of Labor’s 2009 plan to censor the entire Australian internet? It didn’t succeed back then thankfully.
There is no way that they will stop at just the big social media platforms.
This is about control and further removal of being anonymous.
It’s not even a liberal vs labor thing. They both have a history of bipartisan support for this type of bullshit. See: metadata retention, assistance and access, identify and disrupt laws.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
In late December you’ll need photo ID to search google so it kinda is about the internet
hanrahan@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
But the paremts aren’t doing shit, it’s why the Governments stepping in.
WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Right… It’s time to admit people and our governments are both fucked.
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
Should they?
Does that include single parents? Overworked parents? Parents who don’t understand/use the internet? Do you believe that all children follow their parents’ rules when they step out of the door of their houses?
Make an actual argument for young children having social media access.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Govt could extremely easily release a product, with or without NBN involvement, that helps control internet for kids. They don’t and instead impact everyone with this bullshit
dueuwuje@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Yes but parents aren’t doing that so…
ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
That’s their parenting right
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
They won’t.
They shouldn’t need to.
They will still need to under the current form of the social media ban.