A good summary of Australia's new communism.

But, I think that that under-16s are much smarter than the Alboists, and they will get around it; just like that have with the mobile phone ban in schools.

under-16s are much smarter than the Alboists,
ttbn,
Well, they do have the advantage of evidence which the Albonista had to find out the hard way !
The question is are they actually smarter & won't make the mistake of voting Labor again or do they just happen to witness the failures & still vote Labor like so many others before them ?

Indyvidual

The Left seems to thing that they've got the kids, which is why they want to lower the voting age to 16 - when it really should be raised to 25, the age when the brain is fully developed.

But, I've been reading several different independent claims that young people are moving away from the woke left. We shall see at next year's election, which is now being talked of as the death knell of Albanese’s new communists.

It seems the only ones against the online ban for young kids are the social media chiefs. It sounds like a good move instead of no rules at all, and takes the weight of parents who enforce their own rules.
An age limit should be universal.

doog

Discussions clearly indicate that “social mediation chiefs” are not the “only ones against the online ban”. Thousands of kids, for a start, are against it. Oodles of child psychologists think it's a bad idea. Even people, like me, who are not fans of the little buggers are against it. Many politicians are against it. The Human Rights Commission has serious doubts about it. That's right: it is a human rights issue.

This is just a blatant grab for control.

And what's this taking the weight off parents? The government is interfering with parental rights and responsibilities to raise their own children: a typical ploy of totalitarianism, coming between parents and their kids. Are you a parent? Have you asked parents if they like someone else raising their kids?

The “this is for the parents” hogwash from Albanese is just one of his many lies; it's all about getting control of people while they are young, which also suits some in the Coalition, who are up to their ears in censorship and control.

What we have is just another terrible idea from a terrible government.

Article 1 – A child means every human being below the age of eighteen.

Article 18 – Parents have a responsibility for bringing up their child and should always consider what is best.

Government:
Article 36 – Children must be protected from all forms of activities that can harm their development.

.

Dear Binoy,

.

In my view, Social Media Use (SMU) is a drug :

• a little stimulates;
• too much enslaves;
• an overdose dehumanises

– and to tell you the truth, Binoy, I think pretty much the same thing about smartphones.

Illegal drugs include :

• amphetamines
• cannabis (marijuana)
• ecstasy (MDMA)
• heroin.

Legal drugs include :

• alcohol
• caffeine
• nicotine
• over-the-counter and prescribed drugs

Though these drugs are legal, most are subject to legal restrictions :

• Age – for example, you can’t legally drink under the age of 18
• Where you can use them – for example, you can’t drink alcohol or smoke in certain places
• Driving – for example, there are limits on blood alcohol concentration when driving
• Their sale – for example:
1. Tobacco products must display specific health warnings
2. You must have a doctor’s prescription to purchase prescribed drugs

Alcohol is especially risky for teenagers and young people. The brain continues to develop until around 25 years of age, making it more sensitive to damage from alcohol. Drinking alcohol can damage your brain and lead to health issues down the track.

The same goes for SMU and, probably, addictive use of smartphones for whatever purposes.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

According to the 2024 Encyclopædia Britannica, "some observers suggest that social media sites spur greater schadenfreude—the emotional experience of pleasure in response to another’s misfortune—perhaps as a result of the dehumanization that occurs when interacting through screens on computers and mobile devices. Some studies also suggest a strong tie between heavy social media use and increased depression, anxiety, loneliness, suicidal tendencies, and feelings of inadequacy. During his second tenure as U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy raised concerns about social media’s impact on children and in 2024 he suggested mandated warning labels on social media sites".

I think the federal government is right in doing what little it can to protect children from being prematurely exposed to SMU and gaming. If nothing else, It’s at least a clear, sound warning to parents.

Here is a study on the question by the World Health Organisation :

http://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/378982/9789289061322-eng.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

.

Social media is another form of communication. Like any other realm of human interaction it needs rules and regulations. Thinking it all too hard and wanting to ban it seems like a poor response to me.

It's a response to harm which there is an element of.
We have kids killing themselves after social media bullying.
The parents want action, (as one would) but the real truth is that it's a parents responsibility to ensure the physical and emotional wellbeing of their kids, not social media itself.

Parents, talk to your kids - don't be disconnected from what's going on in their lives or be so hard on them they don't fell they can come and talk to you.

Also porn is too easily accessible, not particularly good for young teens, but there's not much that can be done to stop it.

We don't ban cars because traveling in them can sometimes be harmful.

My prediction is 7 days.

7 days from the time this bill is enacted until hell breaks loose in every single home in the country where there is a 13, 14 or 15 year old.

After that I imagine these 'ill-prepared-for-the-real-world-kids', well some of them might actually venture outside and move to drugs, crime.

They will be pushing them out into a world they're ill prepared for.
Chum for the sharks.

Did the wild west stay the wild west? Was the wildness dealt with by banning people from the place?

Frontiers can be wild places. I'm of the opinion that the wildness has better solutions than banning people. It's like you think yourself the ants pants by banning people from climbing a mountain, then you give the protector of the environment free range to kill koalas by building a wind farm on it.

More madness from cult leader Albo.

.

Dear Binoy,

.

Having children is a personal choice and, naturally, parents bear the prime responsibility for their children’s protection and wellbeing.

But child maltreatment, abuse and neglect by parents are serious concerns of society, and the state intervenes in childrearing when they become apparent to outsiders – teachers, medical personnel, or neighbours, who report the situation to child welfare authorities.

The Medical Journal of Australia reported in 2023, following a study of 3500 Australians aged 16– 24, representative of the national population, that the prevalence of child maltreatment was found to be as follows :

• physical abuse, 32.0%
• sexual abuse, 28.5%
• emotional abuse, 30.9%
• neglect, 8.9%
• exposure to domestic violence, 39.6%

Modern democratic societies also expect parents to help preserve their children from choices that may ultimately damage their life chances.

Addiction to social media comes under this category and must now be added to the list of potential causes of harm to children.

Statistics released by the New South Wales government in September 2024 found that 45% of children aged between 5 and 9 used social media — a percentage which rose to 70 per cent between ages 10 and 12, and 94 per cent between 13 and 15. No doubt, the situation in the other states is of a similar nature.

A snap poll conducted by Roy Morgan in July 2022 showed that less than three in ten (29%) Australians agreed that ‘social media solves more problems than it creates. Their perceived exploitation of children by social media companies and the addictive nature of the platforms are the main reasons.

The addiction to social media is hard to break and ongoing conflicts inevitably end in drama in many families with parents often obliged to cede to their children’s unconsolable state of devastation.

Legal prohibition for under 16-year-olds would have the added advantage of transferring responsibility to a higher authority, that of the federal government, thus allowing parents to adopt the far more amenable role of consoling their children instead of chastising them.

.

Well Banjo, you have your wish I believe. As a bonus you also get a thumbs up from Nicolás Maduro. Here is a picture of Nic not giving a fascist salute. The truth is that he was accused of murdering a political opponent and an unscrupulous photographer snapped him as he was pointing at the real culprit.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/25/venezuelan-opposition-activist-found-dead-after-detention-political-party

The senate has seen real merit in banning under 16"s from social media. Aiding parents of their right to control what their kids see and do.
This could set off a world wide action for social media control instead being dictated to by persons with no bounds.
Real leadership comes from elected representatives that care about our underage kids that were getting bad influence from unrestricted social media platforms.