We’ve talked about the Australian social media ban that went into effect last week, how dumb it is, and why it’s already a mess. But late last week, some additional news broke that makes the whole …
No, what it does is removes agency from parents and tells us that we aren’t capable of raising our kids, the government will have to do it. My kids have been asking, for several years, to get Facebook accounts so they can use marketplace. I used that desire to have a frank discussion with them about how predatory Facebook is and how sinister it is that they have subsumed so many things that used to be independent and didn’t require an account with them specifically so they can lock users in and Hoover up more data. I have told the kids that if they want Facebook accounts after they turn 18 they are welcome to open them then, but until that day I am not allowing them to give up their privacy. Do I seem disengaged as a parent?
Prior to the ban, most parents wouldn’t tell their kids they couldn’t use social for fear of making them pariahs - excluded from something their peers are partaking of.
The ban provides parents with the agency to restrict their kids from using social, because at least the majority of kids won’t be there.
I dont see how the ban prevents you from having conversations with your children?
I started writing out a detailed reply going into all the nuance, but I feel that it’s a waste of time. I’m not sure if you are trolling as such, but you are being deliberately obtuse. I actually feel like you understand the points that people are making to you quite clearly. This is terrible legislation, it’s a knee jerk reaction to a complex problem, with very few exceptions this is almost always a bad way of enacting policy.
The jab at my parenting because I already do the things you claim parents are too feeble to do without the government holding their hand is admittedly irritating, but I am going to choose to move past it.
This is the brainfart of a conservative grifter, it’s satanic panic, it’s the war on drugs, it’s another populist policy being pitched at the unintelligent to draw their attention while the business and political interests behind it are picking their pocket. You choose not to see it that way then fine, but we both know it’s true.
I am going to stop engaging with you now, feel free to have as many last says and derisive put downs as you want. I will not be reading them.
So at this point I have to ask if you have experience raising children, because I have raising five of them and the last part of the previous comment describes excellent parenting, social media law or no.
For the record, I think this law is ineffective and I agree with the point raised in numbered form earlier of this government giving us things we don’t want or need, and ignoring the stuff we do.
Are you honestly suggesting that imposing a hard requirement for your children to exclude themselves from the platforms on which their peers are engaging with each other is good parenting?
You personally may not want this ban, but it has overwhelming support from parents generally. Its not even a divisive issue, it has bipartisan support. Thats not to say you cant criticise it, merely that “we” really did ask for this.
So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? Does your whole point ride around peer ridicule, based on who applies the ban, or the ban itself?
Yeah I am honestly suggesting, because parents are better at that, given they know their own children better than most and the situation they’re in. And that it’s their role here, not the federal governments.
it has bipartisan support
So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does. It’s a contributor why we’re called ‘the lucky country’.
This policy is lucky country policy.
’we’ really asked for this
No we didn’t. We asked for gambling ads to be removed and a solution to the housing crisis.
So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to?
I can’t believe I need to spell this out but here goes.
If kids are generally interacting with each other on social media, then excluding your own child from that will make them a pariah. You know, like the kid that can’t go on the school camp because reasons.
With the recent ban, kids are no longer “generally interacting” with each other on social media. It doesn’t matter that some will inevitably circumvent the ban. This gives parents the opportunity to enforce boundaries.
it’s their role here, not the federal governments.
Nonsense. Federal government’s impose age restrictions on all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. There are legislated ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving, et cetera.
So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does.
If something has bipartisan support then more or less by definition, you can’t argue that “we” didn’t ask for it, because everyone’s representatives are asking for it.
By my experience, that didn’t happen. To them or most of their friends. Yes, I know it didn’t, the last one just left school and they were honest with us about it.
ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving
Are vastly different from engaging in social networks. That’s why good parents object to this.
I’ll ask again; do you have any experience raising children. For that matter, drinking or driving?
if something has bipartisan support
It doesn’t mean it’s in our interest and often means it’s lucky country politics.
What a silly thing to say. This law doesn’t stop parents teaching their kids they evils of social media.
No, what it does is removes agency from parents and tells us that we aren’t capable of raising our kids, the government will have to do it. My kids have been asking, for several years, to get Facebook accounts so they can use marketplace. I used that desire to have a frank discussion with them about how predatory Facebook is and how sinister it is that they have subsumed so many things that used to be independent and didn’t require an account with them specifically so they can lock users in and Hoover up more data. I have told the kids that if they want Facebook accounts after they turn 18 they are welcome to open them then, but until that day I am not allowing them to give up their privacy. Do I seem disengaged as a parent?
Yes you really do seem… disengaged as a parent.
Prior to the ban, most parents wouldn’t tell their kids they couldn’t use social for fear of making them pariahs - excluded from something their peers are partaking of.
The ban provides parents with the agency to restrict their kids from using social, because at least the majority of kids won’t be there.
I dont see how the ban prevents you from having conversations with your children?
I started writing out a detailed reply going into all the nuance, but I feel that it’s a waste of time. I’m not sure if you are trolling as such, but you are being deliberately obtuse. I actually feel like you understand the points that people are making to you quite clearly. This is terrible legislation, it’s a knee jerk reaction to a complex problem, with very few exceptions this is almost always a bad way of enacting policy.
The jab at my parenting because I already do the things you claim parents are too feeble to do without the government holding their hand is admittedly irritating, but I am going to choose to move past it.
This is the brainfart of a conservative grifter, it’s satanic panic, it’s the war on drugs, it’s another populist policy being pitched at the unintelligent to draw their attention while the business and political interests behind it are picking their pocket. You choose not to see it that way then fine, but we both know it’s true.
I am going to stop engaging with you now, feel free to have as many last says and derisive put downs as you want. I will not be reading them.
What jab about your parenting? You seem kinda defensive about that actually. Maybe get that looked at.
So at this point I have to ask if you have experience raising children, because I have raising five of them and the last part of the previous comment describes excellent parenting, social media law or no.
For the record, I think this law is ineffective and I agree with the point raised in numbered form earlier of this government giving us things we don’t want or need, and ignoring the stuff we do.
Which part are you referring to?
Are you honestly suggesting that imposing a hard requirement for your children to exclude themselves from the platforms on which their peers are engaging with each other is good parenting?
You personally may not want this ban, but it has overwhelming support from parents generally. Its not even a divisive issue, it has bipartisan support. Thats not to say you cant criticise it, merely that “we” really did ask for this.
So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? Does your whole point ride around peer ridicule, based on who applies the ban, or the ban itself?
Yeah I am honestly suggesting, because parents are better at that, given they know their own children better than most and the situation they’re in. And that it’s their role here, not the federal governments.
So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does. It’s a contributor why we’re called ‘the lucky country’.
This policy is lucky country policy.
No we didn’t. We asked for gambling ads to be removed and a solution to the housing crisis.
I can’t believe I need to spell this out but here goes.
If kids are generally interacting with each other on social media, then excluding your own child from that will make them a pariah. You know, like the kid that can’t go on the school camp because reasons.
With the recent ban, kids are no longer “generally interacting” with each other on social media. It doesn’t matter that some will inevitably circumvent the ban. This gives parents the opportunity to enforce boundaries.
Nonsense. Federal government’s impose age restrictions on all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. There are legislated ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving, et cetera.
If something has bipartisan support then more or less by definition, you can’t argue that “we” didn’t ask for it, because everyone’s representatives are asking for it.
By my experience, that didn’t happen. To them or most of their friends. Yes, I know it didn’t, the last one just left school and they were honest with us about it.
Are vastly different from engaging in social networks. That’s why good parents object to this.
I’ll ask again; do you have any experience raising children. For that matter, drinking or driving?
It doesn’t mean it’s in our interest and often means it’s lucky country politics.
I do have kids approaching this age, but I dont see how thats relevant.
Even as a childless bachelor, any idiot can conclude that children spending less time on social media is good for society.