I've been wondering about this myself. The standard classical-liberal response would be to say "Ha! The censorious authoritarians think this is gonna stop kids from looking at social media? Kids are a helluva lot smarter and more resourceful than these pearl-clutching soccer parents."
But that kinda logic can also be overstated, eg. apparently, alcohol consumption during US prohibition actually did decrease considerably(just not enough to prevent the explosion in organized crime). And I don't have a priori objections to keeping certain material away from kids(eg. we couldn't buy porn when we were under 18, and it's still technically illegal for kids to do so). So I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
In a year's time, the politicians and civil servants who pushed this law through will be either a) hailed as saviours around the globe"They did what everyone said couldn't be done!!"), or b) mercilessly ridiculed around the globe("My parents couldn't stop me from looking at Playboy, but these guys thought they'd keep kids off the freaking internet?!")
My local library used to have a collection of Playboy interviews with no photos of anything, so apparently the literary content did have some appeal on its own.
I've heard people here in NZ complaining that it appears the social media sites also think they need age identification. It seems that there is no such prohibition here.
I'm not sure if it's a mistake or if somehow the corporations think they might as well prevent young people in other countries accessing the sites as well.
I've heard people here in NZ complaining that it appears the social media sites also think they need age identification. It seems that there is no such prohibition here.
You mean that people in New Zealand are complaining that the corporations which own social media are calling for regulation of social media?
No I mean that when they try to login from NZ the site asks for age id. As it would in Australia.
I can't verify this information, I overheard a conversation in a cafe! I don't use any sites where this might be an issue.
Thanks. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how those claims shape up. Sometimes, there can be a post hoc ergo propter hoc effect, ie. in this case, routine sign-in problems get spun into slightly paranoid assumptions and rumours about illegal regulatory overspill from Australia.
Or maybe there is something to it. I'll speculate that if this effs up internet access for a large number of users in non-participating New Zealand, THAT story might overtake the domestic impact of the law as the main topic of public discussion.
As an American, I struggle to imagine how such a law could be enforced without parental cooperation, or even with. Kids are clever and remarkably single minded when they really want something.
I guess it might be easier to build a panopticon online than IRL, but it's still an awful lot of bother.
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
I found young people in Australia in the places I went fairly switched on and engaged with the world. Of course I didn't see more than a snapshot, but I can't really see how this is going to be more than an inconvenience to them.
One good thing is it is making parents more aware of what their children view online and the downsides of social media. As a casual relief teacher who teaches a lot of kids it's amazing how many kids are on things like Roblox or watch TikTok unsupervised who have parents who have no idea of the risks. Not all adults follow the news or parenting experts or even speak English. I'm sure many kids will find a way around it, and some parents won't care, but it is leading to good parents reducing screen time and thinking twice before buying their child a smartphone.
As quoted by ABC(Australia), an American psychologist has praised the law, as offering children "the childhood that we older people remember", because that's what the kids "long for", having "only seen it in movies".
He also phrases the law as "free[ing]" children from social media, this pretense to emancipatory intent justified by the claim that children only wanna go on social media because "that's where everyone else is".
I think the writer is philosophically confused, and is using the language of negative liberty to defend a policy of interventionist protection. Not that there's anything wrong with interventionist protection in regards to children(the law rightfully treats minors separately from adults in numerous contexts), but it's kinda grating to read the guy trying to make it sound like the Australian government is giving the kids exactly what they want on this issue.
HELPFUL PREDICTION: If you are an Australian adult who supports this law, you will NOT find universal approval for your position among the under-16 crowd. Probably the opposite.
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
Chinese people tend to use Chinese social media, as an example. I don't remember the name of the main one.
Anyway, I don't suppose English speaking Australians will use exclusively Chinese language services but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other services from China or elsewhere that are beyond the scope of the Australian laws which maybe some teens will be helping their friends to access.
Parents are tired. And in a lot of ways, it's kinda like TV these days. Everyone wants passive entertainment to pass the time and stave off ennui.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
Chinese people tend to use Chinese social media, as an example. I don't remember the name of the main one.
Anyway, I don't suppose English speaking Australians will use exclusively Chinese language services but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other services from China or elsewhere that are beyond the scope of the Australian laws which maybe some teens will be helping their friends to access.
As an American, I struggle to imagine how such a law could be enforced without parental cooperation, or even with. Kids are clever and remarkably single minded when they really want something.
I guess it might be easier to build a panopticon online than IRL, but it's still an awful lot of bother.
What I've just been wondering...
If kids find a way to dodge the ID requirements and their parents don't stop them, will the law treat this the same way as eg. kids routinely bringing cigarettes into the home and smoking them with the parents' acquiesence? IOW if word gets out this is happening, child-welfare or even the police could maybe pay a visit?
Or is it just the state says "No minors", hopes for the best, and if it doesn't work out, oh well, we tried, and that's that?
Comments
But that kinda logic can also be overstated, eg. apparently, alcohol consumption during US prohibition actually did decrease considerably(just not enough to prevent the explosion in organized crime). And I don't have a priori objections to keeping certain material away from kids(eg. we couldn't buy porn when we were under 18, and it's still technically illegal for kids to do so). So I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
In a year's time, the politicians and civil servants who pushed this law through will be either a) hailed as saviours around the globe"They did what everyone said couldn't be done!!"), or b) mercilessly ridiculed around the globe("My parents couldn't stop me from looking at Playboy, but these guys thought they'd keep kids off the freaking internet?!")
My local library used to have a collection of Playboy interviews with no photos of anything, so apparently the literary content did have some appeal on its own.
I'm not sure if it's a mistake or if somehow the corporations think they might as well prevent young people in other countries accessing the sites as well.
You mean that people in New Zealand are complaining that the corporations which own social media are calling for regulation of social media?
I can't verify this information, I overheard a conversation in a cafe! I don't use any sites where this might be an issue.
Thanks. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how those claims shape up. Sometimes, there can be a post hoc ergo propter hoc effect, ie. in this case, routine sign-in problems get spun into slightly paranoid assumptions and rumours about illegal regulatory overspill from Australia.
Or maybe there is something to it. I'll speculate that if this effs up internet access for a large number of users in non-participating New Zealand, THAT story might overtake the domestic impact of the law as the main topic of public discussion.
I guess it might be easier to build a panopticon online than IRL, but it's still an awful lot of bother.
I found young people in Australia in the places I went fairly switched on and engaged with the world. Of course I didn't see more than a snapshot, but I can't really see how this is going to be more than an inconvenience to them.
He also phrases the law as "free[ing]" children from social media, this pretense to emancipatory intent justified by the claim that children only wanna go on social media because "that's where everyone else is".
I think the writer is philosophically confused, and is using the language of negative liberty to defend a policy of interventionist protection. Not that there's anything wrong with interventionist protection in regards to children(the law rightfully treats minors separately from adults in numerous contexts), but it's kinda grating to read the guy trying to make it sound like the Australian government is giving the kids exactly what they want on this issue.
HELPFUL PREDICTION: If you are an Australian adult who supports this law, you will NOT find universal approval for your position among the under-16 crowd. Probably the opposite.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
Chinese people tend to use Chinese social media, as an example. I don't remember the name of the main one.
Anyway, I don't suppose English speaking Australians will use exclusively Chinese language services but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other services from China or elsewhere that are beyond the scope of the Australian laws which maybe some teens will be helping their friends to access.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
Thanks. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
What I've just been wondering...
If kids find a way to dodge the ID requirements and their parents don't stop them, will the law treat this the same way as eg. kids routinely bringing cigarettes into the home and smoking them with the parents' acquiesence? IOW if word gets out this is happening, child-welfare or even the police could maybe pay a visit?
Or is it just the state says "No minors", hopes for the best, and if it doesn't work out, oh well, we tried, and that's that?