Why can't they stop phones in school, Since so many hours are spent there, plus the distraction it causes. What they do at home is the parents responsibility. It's not the job of Government.
What about the blame game propaganda peddled in schools. We are all going to die its a climate emergency and it is your fault if it happens. Tell that to your captive audience of children that for 10 years and see how many have serious depression.
This is about censorship and keeping tabs on the whole population's activity on social media. Not coincidentally, social media is commonly used to organise protests, which governments are also trying to restrict or ban.
I used to be for removing anonymity. Then I realised many users live in countries ruled by authoritarians who like to harass, jail & kill dissenters, including dissenters online. I don’t like the idea of of requiring identification for everyone anymore, including in Australia where increasing political tribalism is resulting in social harms to people who don’t subscribe to current orthodoxies - see the trans rights vs women’s rights debate.
I'd prefer Australian citizens had the equivalent of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Or the constitutionally enshrined Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
@@amraceway Agreed - we don't need the equivalent of the United States 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. But I would like to see the following text enshrined in the Australian Constitution. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." New Zealand Bill of Rights.
@@mindi2050 Motherhood statements are all very good but I would prefer clear impartial laws. I find it ironic that many who preach freedom get into a frenzy about those with opposing views and resort to calling them bots to shut them up.
@@mindi2050 unfortunately it didn’t protect people during COVID from lockdowns and being coerced by government officials to take a experimental injection, particularly middle aged people and especially children who had little to no risk of dying from COVID.
Parents need to take responsibility for their children.. government doesn’t need to anyone co parent … this is not about children this is 1000% about digital ID and biometrics and another way to censor us the MAD bill was defeated this is worse and must be defeated too ..
There are so many potential problems with this bill, it shocks me that they would attempt rush this so much. There are problems with education, social needs (many kids grow up in isolated communities), privacy (something we are already dangerously lacking online) etc. The only thing I can agree with about this is that the internet is a dangerous place and children have not been well protected I've seen some things that I wish I hadn't, I don't see this actually solving that problem though it's oversimplifying a complex issue and could do more harm than good to these kids, this seems like a decision that should be made very carefully after a lot of thorough research not something that should be rushed through. Also personally I am very selective about where I verify my identity and there are many websites that I would never trust with my personal information, I spent too long studying cyber-security artificial intelligence and data analysis to just blindly trust these platforms.
Going to be an awful lot of under 16 year olds who have no idea where to go for their weekend sport. 🤣 Let’s also remember that no parent is allowed to access their child’s Medicare records once they turn 14. So what’s going on here ? Are children responsible for themselves or not? Make up your mind govt!
Your take on forced identity is TERRIBLE. There are plenty of examples where anonymity has huge consequences, such as when voicing dissent. “I don’t like it because someone might say mean things” vs a MASSIVE boost to the ability to criticize a government one might feel threatens them… I know what I choose. I do appreciate your raising of the data privacy concerns though, and you succinctly covered the major challenges on that front.
What about the privacy of all the adults who now have to provide identity information, what about the identity theft risk, and the security of data storage? This is stupid.
Yes, as a government we MUST be seen to be doing SOMETHING, despite the fact those in Canberra have, for many years, not demonstrably indicated they are competent to draft anything more complex than a shopping list (any party).
I was hoping very much you would do a video on this topic. The moment it was introduced I couldn't see how this could possible hold up in the high court because it restricts a child's ability to speak freely. Any restrictions on speech is something for the parents to administer, not the government. But it doesn't just affect the child, If some type of id were to be required for an adult user and he or she refused to agree to those terms then it means that adult user is not being allowed to speak in the way he or she wishes, it's literally the government dictating who, how and where you can express your views. The question also begs whether there are alternatives to the bill that would actually better address the issues it's trying to solve, and I would argue there is. In particular parental controls on the devices which are seldom used. I'm pleased to hear your uncertainty over the validity of this law, this will inevitably be challenged in the High Court.
To enable any form of underage restriction requires the entire population to undergo a stricter identification to use the same services. That control of identification is the primary agenda of this bill. Then there is the money the government will make from online services through licencing and fines. Then there is the control the government will gain over the services who must do as they are told or not get their licence.
Seriously. Just rushing it through before holidays is something we can begrudgingly accept from an LGA. But not from our federal government. No should be the vote on that alone.
The Constitutional Clarion is essentially a free university course in law by a top professor without having HECS debt or paying Uni fees. The Bill provisions will have some good effect in giving support to parents and schools doing policing - they can say to their kids that the rules apply to all kids, not just their own. The law will be another legal weapon for thousands to wage lawfare against social media businesses that are perceived to have money or are run/owned by people they don't like. The law is also another weapon to attack people whose command of English is poor - like the many that reelected Trump. Law has been used in this way forever. 48 years ago I was a witness in court when my migrant taxi driver was arrested by plain clothes police in inner-Sydney for what he said to them as they loited blocking a road. They opened the driver's door and took him. They then opened the rear door and told me to "piss-off" - I did not know who the guys in suits were, I thought they were going to kill the driver. Being pissed-off at losing my late night cab ride, I only pissed-off far enough to collect evidence unobserved. Neither the police nor I could identify each other. Most of my time in the witness box was taken up by the prosecutor with my understanding of the meaning of words - perhaps reasonable, I was studying engineering at USyd. At court, I discovered the taxi driver was charged was offensive language. The police did not appreciate being forcefully told to get out of the way. The solicitor later told me the magistrate found him not quilty. 'X' apparently has access to appropriate judges in Texas for using the power of the US to respond to international lawfare against it. 'X' polices many things on its platform. Its standard for speech is that set by the US Supreme Court - a standard that has stood the test of time, but is hated by many. Our e-safety commissioner, a Canadian whose views sound very California Democrat, has gone quiet. As Anne suggests, the law will be hard to apply to technically literate kids, or anyone learning, or knows, another language other than English, such as most people with a migrant background. They will be on internationally hosted platforms in Chinese, Hindi and dozens of other languages.
Thank you! This is such a crucial topic. The impact this will have on privacy for ALL Australians is detrimental for human rights. Appreciate your perspective bringing attention to it.
Thank You for your comments regarding the Misinformation & Disinformation (MAD) bill. I'm so pleased you voiced your opinion 🙏💜🙏 I'm now watching this Video 👌
The bill has been dropped by the Government - which is both good and bad. There was actually some good stuff in there, about requiring digital platforms to be transparent about their policies, including complaint processes, etc. It's a pity if they abandon that part.
As an Aussie who makes websites and information systems, having to demand evidence of age just so you can use my site feels all sorts of wrong. I'd much rather normalise not handing out personally identifiable information, especially for minors.
Perhaps personal data could be assigned a value -- for instance, to track a mouse around a page for 5min might warrant setting aside $100 for the reader, and keeping their DOB might provide them $15,000. If the data is useful then this may be worth it, and if not then they might finally stop vacuuming everything.
@@fellowcitizen Personal data is assigned a value, that's how social media makes money. This video did a really bad job of understanding what social media is
Rather disingenous to sight malicious intent as the only reason for wanting anonymity, in light of the current political climate in the West. So tragic to see political prisoners (of speech) in the Motherland. 😢😡
"conspiacy theory"? Tell that to the brittish servicman that just got 2 years jail for re-posting political content. Anonymity is critical to not allow governments becoming dictatorships .....something we are on the verge of becoming. This is labours third attempt to circumvent the will of the people or remove their right to express it.
@sophitsa79 because labour are the ones that did what I mentioned. Yes the libs are not great with the laws they put in several years ago, but not nearly as bad. The anti demonstration laws are not that bad.....just look at all the violent protests that are being allowed now. I'm not 100% on the details but thought they mainly crack down people blocking traffic, and other antisocial behaviour during protests.
It probably won't - people can still watch my videos on TH-cam without an account. But it would prevent people from making comments and asking questions. When I speak at school constitutional conventions, I find that the students come up with terrific questions, so it's good to get them engaged.
So, potentially, people under 16 are going to be barred from participating in things that are beneficial for their health & well-being if it's on social media.
@SouthernAurora over 16’s as well because many will refuse a digital id because of well founded concerns. People with chronic illnesses that are isolated find support groups on social media and lifeline. Many will be cut off.
I take care never to be abusive or threatening in my online interactions, yet I still value my anonymity. I don't want to become a target for any crazy who may take exception to my opinions.
Domestic violence victims are less likely to be targeted online on social media platforms if they don’t use their real names. It’s to protect them from their violent abusers who would use it to hunt them.
The essence is that the author every post on "social media" is identified by a GovID. That also implies reads, interactions, reactions and other expressions of thoughts, views and opinions.
Won't someone please think about the children. This bill seems to me to be a snap decision to silence negative press with little thought to any unintended ramifications or even benefits of the bill.
We need more people like you in Australia. And they need bigger platforms. Do you think in Representative Government at least your opinion is getting through to our Representatives since in our system they’re supposed to replace the need for us to pay close attention?
Thanks. I think I have a small degree of influence in relation to constitutional matters, because I also do media interviews, and politicians tend to know who I am. I also often make submissions to parliamentary committees and give evidence to them. On the rare occasion, when I've tipped a bucket over a badly devised bill at a committee hearing, I've felt that I've convinced both sides and the bill has been dropped. But if there is a strong political interest in doing something, nothing I say or do will shift the dial. All I can do is spread awareness of what is going on, which is what I try to do on this channel. It doesn't have a huge audience, so there is minimal cut-through unless someone with influence sees on of my videos and uses it. But the audience is gradually growing, and one day it might of itself be a powerful tool. You never know.
Why wouldn't the parents take responsibility for this, why would government need to step in on what is a households responsibility? I'll be showing my kids how VPN's work. Might lead to a whole generation learning how to bypass government restrictions, could be a great lesson for all. 😀 🙂 I know you are really busy but if you ever got the time, could you lets us know what a law would look like to stop politicians passing policy in favor of a company that they then quit government and join. Not that I know this is corruption but it doesnt look good. As always love your work. 🙂 Like what Punters Politics covered th-cam.com/video/pE5p8BK5HdU/w-d-xo.html
This also doesn't address how social media platforms that require a parent subscription in order for a child to participate (which is most gaming platforms) will police the unregistered children of those subscriptions. My children do not register with Sony PlayStation directly or indirectly. I the playing parent do that. How does Sony police the children on it's platform that are never registered to Sony?
As a software engineer, I find the mechanism of age verification the biggest worry here. Followed closely by the definition of "social media". You mention the cesspool of internet comments. I agree that it is a bad situation but as we can see on Facebook, attaching names and faces is not enough to clean up the comments. Not to mention we are a tiny drop in the bucket of internet traffic. On what counts as social media. Does my blog count as social media? What if I add a comments section? By my values the internet should not draw borders based on geography and at a technical level it is very hard to confidently say which country traffic is coming from. I strongly believe in the right to anonymous speech even if it's abhorrent. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Any requirement to verify age necessarily implies a restriction on anonymous speech. I do not see the benefit of this bill and I do not see the support for this bill from the public.
As a fellow software engineer, you should know that it _is_ technically feasible for the government to implement this age restriction in a way that maintains privacy. There are good reasons to expect that it won't be done that way, but it _can_ be done, in theory. There's a little more detail in the comment I made elsewhere under this video, but in short: the mechanism is what's called a blinded signature. Essentially, the government or another trusted body could sign a blinded token after verifying the person's age, and then the person could hand that token, unblinded, to the site where they wish to prove age.
@@JimCullen I don't think it's too unlikely to be done this way, it would give the government the ability to disable a persons (or even the whole countries) token(s) should they say something the government doesn't like.
@martincross.id10tgames no it wouldn't. That's the point of blinded tokens. They would be completely unable to connect a person who got age-verified to their accounts.
You know that they have been doing that, don't you? You also realise that there are several different government departments that each specialise in different areas, so that teams of people can be working on different incredibly important issues at once. This is why there could be a war somewhere so our military is doing its thing while the education department is still delivering education to kids here.
If passed it should be repealed period freedom of thought and speach is at risk & shows teaching & education is at risk in view of this a bill of rights should be requested to be adopted and. Enacted
It seems that another viewer got there first - from the comments. It's still showing 0% however, so the demographic info provided by TH-cam seems a bit dodgy. But do encourage him to join a very select group!
That says it all. If a highly educated person like yourself find it difficult to link the intention of the bill with the perceived harm, how does the average person mend to understand?
I believe ways around these bills would already exist.. Critically harsh bullying already exists on messaging apps.. Also any discord irc snap chat.. It's up to you the parent to know if your child is being manipulated online... It happens to adults also.... You stop your kids from doing drugs and being abused by the local gangs? That's all online now.. Be a parent!! Excuse me..? Penalty units?.. Social credit score? Excuse me.. Pardon?...
A Digital ID has already passed both houses on May 16 and comes into effect on December 1. No one seems to know this. Copy and past this into a search engine. The Digital ID Bill Parliament of Australia
Can't understand why gambling platforms are not covered by the U16 ban, when gambling is such a major social problem. Glad to see TH-cam excluded, as there are numerous worthy TH-cam sites. I have used them for teaching English language to refugees. There are numerous international VPNs which Australians could connect to, and pretend to be based in another country, so the ban should be easily bypassed.
@@michaelsecomb4115 Or they can do like Facebook has done when they are faced with things like Canada making it a requirement to only show local news. They addressed that by geo-blocking all news to Canada. I could easily see the various platforms deciding it is easier to geo-block us rather than work out way to verify age.
Just a comment on the end: young people do watch political education videos. My analytics show that in the past 28 days my audience was comprised of 4.7% people aged 13-17. This equates to roughly 20,300 unique viewers according to TH-cam analytics, though usually that number is lower.
There's probably more 13-17 year olds than that. Plenty of kids under 13 lie about their age making accounts, so quite a few (who did that a few years ago) would be listed 1-2 age brackets higher
@@amraceway Change your rebuttal to one that is evidence based. There is plenty of evidence for WEF agenda's globally cases in point: 1. Mass immigration across western nations (which no-one voted for, and most vote against), 2. $10,000 cash ban proposals - which came from no Australian community body, Law enforcement body or politician - but from the 'bureaucracy' supported by debunked claims about 'black economy" - fortunately defeated by community action, 3. Destroying the energy systems in Western nations and in place destroying the environment with ineffective and carbon-expensive to produce solar panels and wind turbines 4. War in Ukraine to control Russia, 5. A global pandemic and follow up dangerous treatments forced on the populations. I could go on. But the fact is, these people declare exactly what they are doing - and have since at least the Georgia Guidestones, just watch the videos of their meetings.
Thoughtful assessment. Thanks for posting this! Rushed, broad legislation that will negatively impact vastly more people than possibly will help and no clear evidence to support what the stated issues are tells me that government simply wants more control over messaging to the masses.
Last week - Misinformation~Disinformation This week -- Social Media Limits for those under 16s. Next week - Voting Age Reform - Under 18s to get Vote -- 😉🙂😊
Week after that ‘re-education camp bill’. After all there are people in prison in UK who tweeted - quite correctly / that the Southport killing of little girls was religiously motivated. Jail.
I’m not committing a crime by posting a comment under a different name. I just don’t want my business or family to suffer because I may have a different opinion OR decide to share it. Even Elon Musk making liking posts on twitter has allowed people to express their opinions without being shamed or canceled by the internet. I like your content and regardless of whether you are mainstream or controversial, my watching, liking or commenting shouldn’t mean I’m forever tarred with the brush of authority over it. If I was of a culture or religion or employment or government that was authoritarian then I’d be silenced because I would be easy to find. Can you not see that? Or is that the whole idea…?
I see this as the governments way of making big money from Facebook X etc because it will be impossible to police. Can I let my small grandkids play games like chess and solitaire on my iPad ?
The bill is only addressed at the platforms giving account to people under the age of 16s. If your grandkids don't need a personal account to play chess or solitaire on your iPad, then there's no problem.
Is there anything within our Constitution that actually benefits and empowers ordinary Australian Citizens and allows us to hold our out of control governments to account ...because I'm not seeing it?.
Technically a constitution is to limit the powers of governments (and of Monarchs) but in Australia's case it basically allows anything - and only allocates these powers to either the states or the federal government. The Governors and Governor General do nothing, and also even with an allocation of - say health - to the states we still have 5000 people employed by the federal health department. Also the courts do whatever they please - Lionel Murphy established the principle that justice should be ignored and only the letter of the law observed, yet when it came to COVID the courts decided to ignore this principle and instead just interpret things how they wanted them to be - this "absolutely free" travel between the states became 'not free' - such are our rights under the constitution enforced - or rather removed.
I believe that the primary responsibility should be to prevent and swiftly remove content that is illegal in the "real world," rather than focusing solely on restricting access for users under 16 years old. Using social media has become an essential part of navigating today’s social and professional environments worldwide. Denying access to our youth places them at a disadvantage, for example, if an under-16 Australian were to relocate overseas, (from Australia) their online engagement experience would be behind that of their peers - other students, and/or job opportunities.
Thank you so much. I saw headlines about this earlier in the week and, as a parent, was genuinely concerned. As far as I knew, we weren’t moving towards becoming a police state. (Keep the Spud outta the Lodge!)
This legislation will be as effective as the banning of pirate bay. Ie, absolutely no impact. .....and cost a crap load of money. How about the government focus on fixing legislatuon thats a problem instead of creating more problems.
It's not that I don't support protecting our young people. But I honestly don't see how this proposed legislation is going to work in real life. Same with some of the other bills that have been proposed lately.
Facebook and other platforms already have ID verification systems in place that get applied randomly when issues over if someone is who they claim to be are raised, it also a tactic used by scammers. Being in the "not having photo ID" class of citizens, I clearly understand how I will be disadvantaged, but would prefer some consistency on enforcement to waiting for AI or randos who disagree with me to mass report me and get my accounts frozen
Control, control, control that's all it's about!! I'm very sorry for anyone who has been the subject or effected by bullying etc but as a 64 yr old its always gone on and there was no internet in my day. Agree it's more prevalent and probably easier as it can be done anonymously and witnessed/viewed by more people today but I don't see this bill serving any useful purpose other than control.
Does this mean that the young people of Australia will be unable to participate in this online creator economy that has made so many other countries youth filthy rich? Sounds like a massive disadvantage for the young Australians who might have become famous content creators who will now no longer have that option. I also find it really strange how much the government cares about Australian childrens well being online but do nothing to assist so many families who are severely struggling due to this hyper inflated economy with their housing or food. My neighbours have been pouring buckets of water over their kids for bathes because they are unable to fix their shower or pay for the hot water so they leave buckets of water in the sun to let them heat up during the day.
One might expect teaching the older folk what they have probably missed about the real significance and practices of Constitutional Democracy, always the current problem, to be at the top of the list of viewers who wil be affecting their children and children's children etc. Bit of a key communication Principle and absolutely necessary. Gret thanks to CC of course.
Kids are bullied at school. They are exposed to harmful words from other students. It’s not safe. I propose all children are home schooled until the age of 18. A ridiculous idea? It certainly is, but it’s rationale is not too different than the proposed bill. And the actual harm will be to the children.
Words are NOT harmful unless they incite a physical assault. Words CAN be ignored and it’s about time that parents started to teach their kids that again. As for unsuitable content - isn’t that what parental controls and the eSafety Commission is supposed to be for? Why are we paying that woman half a million dollars a year to ensure child safety? What a joke!
One point at 11min 30s in: you can have ID verification with anonymous or pseudonymous posting. Given the US founding fathers themselves were writing pseudonymously, as did Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Lewis Carrol, George Orwell and many female writers, we can't really assume that ID verification would lead to visible identification of comments. Just that there'd be easier recourse against speech. If pseudonyms were made illegal, then in essence you're removing capacity for selective disclosure of identity. To me this is a major privacy concern (would usernames in a game be valid? would nicknames on facebook be?) and a free speech issue (due to chilling effects).
This bill is more about helping newspapers, TV and radio to survive by putting obstacles in the way of the crowds of people giving up on their rubbish content and changing over to social media sites for news, education and entertainment. That's why old media are singing it's praises without a hint of scrutiny. The under 16 protection excuse is just a smoke screen in my opinion and I have an 11 year old.
I absolutely agree. Meanwhile the old media run gambling ads in prime time sport. Precisely by sheer coincidence when young eyeballs are ripe for the picking.
Thankyou for this. TH-cam suggested it and I think it’s a great suggestion. I agree with you. As someone who wants to potentially start a support service for people with rare and complex illness, I am aware that that means various very isolated kids wouldn’t have that support. I am fully trained to assist them but reality is, I have been very unwell since I was 11 years old. Now, a number of decades later, I remain extremely isolated. Now to be clear: I have said for a very long time that it’s wise of those of us who’ve learnt lessons with social media to teach them to younger generations for example…. I don’t have notifications on! Even for normal text messages, especially overnight it is only limited to those that are essential. I turn off my phone in appointments, I put my phone away on the times I am with another human being in the flesh (unless waiting for a known and important call, like yesterday waiting for the hospital to ring!). I do not think that this bill assists the protection of young people at all, and rather I’d love to see two things happen: 1. That parents are educated on options that they can utilise to assist their kids with social media. My experience in working with parents of young people isn’t that most don’t care, they just don’t know and need support to implement things. Then, I’d love to see reintroduced into the school curriculum (which I know is excessively full but often with things that maybe aren’t as helpful as once thought to be), education around civics, economics and the law. It’s basic stuff but hey, if they could at least name the components of government in their own state they have a better chance at engaging in the process later on. Economics because while not everyone is going to manage multi million dollar companies, they do need to manage their own budget and far too many cannot. When you’re lost in social media world, you’re not necessarily working and budgeting and thus losing that skill. And then most importantly….. teaching kids critical thinking. Understanding propaganda, thinking through questions, how do we debate a topic (without resorting to name calling!) and so forth. These are skills that would help every child and be more effective and manage social media better. I think that removing under 16’s from social media doesn’t help when the companies aren’t removing pornography and similar ACTUAL issues like that. The only point I somewhat disagree on is…. I do think anonymity is important where needed. Do I think it would prevent trolls? Yes I agree there. But for me, who IS isolated and does speak online and encourage people in DM’s etc (without being derogatory), I know my actual physical safety would be at risk if identified and not from other users per se. Yes this is appropriately reported but if I have to give my identity to all social media, it would mean I couldn’t start a needed support service, I couldn’t connect with people especially around the world (rare and complex does mean it’s not limited to Australia) and I would then have to choose between my life being at risk or not. Given my mother was a lecturer in internet security before retiring, she would agree that identification online isn’t safe. I don’t post pictures of me or my location. It’s up to others what they do, but that’s where wider education would be helpful than a ban on youth under 16. Just my opinion. Irrespective, so glad TH-cam suggested your channel to me! I always enjoy hearing good and thoughtful ideas (something sorely lacking in much of society) and definitely look forward to more of your commentary. Thankyou.
One point is that cross platform sharing will still be available, one assumes, then material from a banned platform could be shared by an adult to a minor on an open messaging app
There is no legal prohibition on adults giving children access to social media - eg an adult establishing an account and giving their child the password so the child can access it whenever they want. The only legal prohibition is directed at the platform, requiring it to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having their own account.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Had a question based on a scenario a couple weeks before I watched this video. Would definitely of seen this before I went into Mt exam though ahaha.
Should we put kids in a bubble until they are 18, then let them out into a world you can’t navigate, or do we let parents parent and let them teach their children how to live in the world?
The problem is that social media has been shown to harm children's development. And some bloody irresponsible parent allow their 10 year olds to access it. Which brings themes into the classroom that 10 year olds should not be exposed to. I all for not coddling our children, but within reason. I dont want some irresponsible parents affecting the development of my kids. Let them ruin their own kids lives
Hi Professor. PART V (s) 51. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution... I suppose a responsible government 1890 is different to responsible government 2024 🌏🇦🇺
I can just see millions of us applying for an exemption, and a backlog of decades, waiting for a response. Will every school now have their own Web Master? New I.T. jobs will abound.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
With every post, I come to the conclusion that becoming an avid 'Clarionette' was the smartest thing I have done this year. Thank you.
I love the term 'Clarionette'. Marvellous!
Don't forget there are many legitimate uses for anonymity (dealing with DV, reporting from a war zone etc) that need to be catered for
Yes, I probably should think more about that.
They rushed it thru, they didn’t want any ones opinion on the bill, disgusting
Why can't they stop phones in school,
Since so many hours are spent there, plus the distraction it causes.
What they do at home is the parents responsibility. It's not the job of Government.
Many schools already have a no phone policy
Yes, this is the solution. - at least partly.
What about the blame game propaganda peddled in schools. We are all going to die its a climate emergency and it is your fault if it happens. Tell that to your captive audience of children that for 10 years and see how many have serious depression.
@@hc3657 yes they have been peddling miss information for years. The bill if it passed wouldn't apply to them 😂😂
Never trust a political intention with an impending respond by date.
This is about censorship and keeping tabs on the whole population's activity on social media. Not coincidentally, social media is commonly used to organise protests, which governments are also trying to restrict or ban.
I used to be for removing anonymity. Then I realised many users live in countries ruled by authoritarians who like to harass, jail & kill dissenters, including dissenters online. I don’t like the idea of of requiring identification for everyone anymore, including in Australia where increasing political tribalism is resulting in social harms to people who don’t subscribe to current orthodoxies - see the trans rights vs women’s rights debate.
Good point.
Is a person's name really germaine to the conversation?
Bloody cheek give us 48hours and a couple of sides of an A4 sheet of paper. Surely this is a wholly inadequate consultatuon.
Cheek is not the right word. Evil is.
Australian citizens needs something equivalent to a US Bill of Rights
Look where that got them, unprecedented gun violence, a civil war and Trump.
I'd prefer Australian citizens had the equivalent of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Or the constitutionally enshrined Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
@@amraceway Agreed - we don't need the equivalent of the United States 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. But I would like to see the following text enshrined in the Australian Constitution.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." New Zealand Bill of Rights.
@@mindi2050 Motherhood statements are all very good but I would prefer clear impartial laws. I find it ironic that many who preach freedom get into a frenzy about those with opposing views and resort to calling them bots to shut them up.
@@mindi2050 unfortunately it didn’t protect people during COVID from lockdowns and being coerced by government officials to take a experimental injection, particularly middle aged people and especially children who had little to no risk of dying from COVID.
Parents need to take responsibility for their children.. government doesn’t need to anyone co parent … this is not about children this is 1000% about digital ID and biometrics and another way to censor us the MAD bill was defeated this is worse and must be defeated too ..
This is not just for kids it’s for everybody.
There are so many potential problems with this bill, it shocks me that they would attempt rush this so much.
There are problems with education, social needs (many kids grow up in isolated communities), privacy (something we are already dangerously lacking online) etc.
The only thing I can agree with about this is that the internet is a dangerous place and children have not been well protected I've seen some things that I wish I hadn't, I don't see this actually solving that problem though it's oversimplifying a complex issue and could do more harm than good to these kids, this seems like a decision that should be made very carefully after a lot of thorough research not something that should be rushed through.
Also personally I am very selective about where I verify my identity and there are many websites that I would never trust with my personal information, I spent too long studying cyber-security artificial intelligence and data analysis to just blindly trust these platforms.
Going to be an awful lot of under 16 year olds who have no idea where to go for their weekend sport. 🤣 Let’s also remember that no parent is allowed to access their child’s Medicare records once they turn 14. So what’s going on here ? Are children responsible for themselves or not? Make up your mind govt!
I was able to draft and submit a submission for the first time ever. This thing is a shambolic mess being rushed through and is an utter disgrace.
That is an insanely widespread definition that the executive should not be given the power to alter unconditionally! This is inanity!
Your take on forced identity is TERRIBLE. There are plenty of examples where anonymity has huge consequences, such as when voicing dissent.
“I don’t like it because someone might say mean things” vs a MASSIVE boost to the ability to criticize a government one might feel threatens them… I know what I choose.
I do appreciate your raising of the data privacy concerns though, and you succinctly covered the major challenges on that front.
They dont want any chijdren educated by anyone not government approved.. what sort of government does thar?
It’s just stupid. Let the parents parent .
I wish there was a drive to reduce legislation instead of an endless stream of new invasive legislation. Less is more.
What about the privacy of all the adults who now have to provide identity information, what about the identity theft risk, and the security of data storage? This is stupid.
Yes, as a government we MUST be seen to be doing SOMETHING, despite the fact those in Canberra have, for many years, not demonstrably indicated they are competent to draft anything more complex than a shopping list (any party).
I was hoping very much you would do a video on this topic. The moment it was introduced I couldn't see how this could possible hold up in the high court because it restricts a child's ability to speak freely. Any restrictions on speech is something for the parents to administer, not the government. But it doesn't just affect the child, If some type of id were to be required for an adult user and he or she refused to agree to those terms then it means that adult user is not being allowed to speak in the way he or she wishes, it's literally the government dictating who, how and where you can express your views. The question also begs whether there are alternatives to the bill that would actually better address the issues it's trying to solve, and I would argue there is. In particular parental controls on the devices which are seldom used. I'm pleased to hear your uncertainty over the validity of this law, this will inevitably be challenged in the High Court.
To enable any form of underage restriction requires the entire population to undergo a stricter identification to use the same services. That control of identification is the primary agenda of this bill. Then there is the money the government will make from online services through licencing and fines. Then there is the control the government will gain over the services who must do as they are told or not get their licence.
Don't we already hand over all our details to companies and government?
Not all of us.
Any excuse, any trick, to control the people.
Seriously. Just rushing it through before holidays is something we can begrudgingly accept from an LGA. But not from our federal government. No should be the vote on that alone.
Age of Criminality is 10 in most states. Seems incongruous.
The Constitutional Clarion is essentially a free university course in law by a top professor without having HECS debt or paying Uni fees.
The Bill provisions will have some good effect in giving support to parents and schools doing policing - they can say to their kids that the rules apply to all kids, not just their own.
The law will be another legal weapon for thousands to wage lawfare against social media businesses that are perceived to have money or are run/owned by people they don't like.
The law is also another weapon to attack people whose command of English is poor - like the many that reelected Trump. Law has been used in this way forever. 48 years ago I was a witness in court when my migrant taxi driver was arrested by plain clothes police in inner-Sydney for what he said to them as they loited blocking a road. They opened the driver's door and took him. They then opened the rear door and told me to "piss-off" - I did not know who the guys in suits were, I thought they were going to kill the driver. Being pissed-off at losing my late night cab ride, I only pissed-off far enough to collect evidence unobserved. Neither the police nor I could identify each other. Most of my time in the witness box was taken up by the prosecutor with my understanding of the meaning of words - perhaps reasonable, I was studying engineering at USyd. At court, I discovered the taxi driver was charged was offensive language. The police did not appreciate being forcefully told to get out of the way. The solicitor later told me the magistrate found him not quilty.
'X' apparently has access to appropriate judges in Texas for using the power of the US to respond to international lawfare against it. 'X' polices many things on its platform. Its standard for speech is that set by the US Supreme Court - a standard that has stood the test of time, but is hated by many.
Our e-safety commissioner, a Canadian whose views sound very California Democrat, has gone quiet.
As Anne suggests, the law will be hard to apply to technically literate kids, or anyone learning, or knows, another language other than English, such as most people with a migrant background. They will be on internationally hosted platforms in Chinese, Hindi and dozens of other languages.
Thank you! This is such a crucial topic. The impact this will have on privacy for ALL Australians is detrimental for human rights. Appreciate your perspective bringing attention to it.
in all likelihood the bullying will revert to what it traditionally has been, live and in person. problem not solved
It starts in person, face to face where it counts the most. The social media is the cherry on top.
Thank You for your comments regarding the Misinformation & Disinformation (MAD) bill.
I'm so pleased you voiced your opinion 🙏💜🙏
I'm now watching this Video 👌
The bill has been dropped by the Government - which is both good and bad. There was actually some good stuff in there, about requiring digital platforms to be transparent about their policies, including complaint processes, etc. It's a pity if they abandon that part.
So they are pushing the platforms to do their diry work with the digital I D
As an Aussie who makes websites and information systems, having to demand evidence of age just so you can use my site feels all sorts of wrong. I'd much rather normalise not handing out personally identifiable information, especially for minors.
Perhaps personal data could be assigned a value -- for instance, to track a mouse around a page for 5min might warrant setting aside $100 for the reader, and keeping their DOB might provide them $15,000. If the data is useful then this may be worth it, and if not then they might finally stop vacuuming everything.
@@fellowcitizen Personal data is assigned a value, that's how social media makes money. This video did a really bad job of understanding what social media is
Thank you. Excellent points.
Rather disingenous to sight malicious intent as the only reason for wanting anonymity, in light of the current political climate in the West. So tragic to see political prisoners (of speech) in the Motherland. 😢😡
"conspiacy theory"?
Tell that to the brittish servicman that just got 2 years jail for re-posting political content.
Anonymity is critical to not allow governments becoming dictatorships .....something we are on the verge of becoming. This is labours third attempt to circumvent the will of the people or remove their right to express it.
Why do you mention Labor? Are you not aware of the Liberal parties policies that limit protest?
@sophitsa79 because labour are the ones that did what I mentioned. Yes the libs are not great with the laws they put in several years ago, but not nearly as bad.
The anti demonstration laws are not that bad.....just look at all the violent protests that are being allowed now. I'm not 100% on the details but thought they mainly crack down people blocking traffic, and other antisocial behaviour during protests.
Thank you. Rest assured I have already recommended you TH-cam channel to my 16 year old daughter. Thanks Professor for another video.
Thanks. Much obliged.
This is about digital ID surveillance.
The slow march through the institutions and everything else.
I feel silly about this, but it never occurred to me that this bill would affect this channel! Strange how the brain works
It probably won't - people can still watch my videos on TH-cam without an account. But it would prevent people from making comments and asking questions. When I speak at school constitutional conventions, I find that the students come up with terrific questions, so it's good to get them engaged.
So, potentially, people under 16 are going to be barred from participating in things that are beneficial for their health & well-being if it's on social media.
@SouthernAurora over 16’s as well because many will refuse a digital id because of well founded concerns. People with chronic illnesses that are isolated find support groups on social media and lifeline. Many will be cut off.
@megantong1345 Sadly true 😢
I take care never to be abusive or threatening in my online interactions, yet I still value my anonymity. I don't want to become a target for any crazy who may take exception to my opinions.
Like the government?
@briananderson7285 😁😁😁 Exactly.
Domestic violence victims are less likely to be targeted online on social media platforms if they don’t use their real names. It’s to protect them from their violent abusers who would use it to hunt them.
@megantong1345 Good point.
Anything they want to ‘push past’ like this is completely dodgy! & unacceptable!
As you explain it’s got so many holes in it’s not funny
The essence is that the author every post on "social media" is identified by a GovID. That also implies reads, interactions, reactions and other expressions of thoughts, views and opinions.
These clowns should be blocked from creating any legislation until they are booted out: they are dangerous!
Thank you for this in depth explanation.
I know this bill is wrong but couldn't pin point what I was sending.
You have helped me understand
What documentation will people require to prove their age? An ID card perhaps?
Won't someone please think about the children. This bill seems to me to be a snap decision to silence negative press with little thought to any unintended ramifications or even benefits of the bill.
We need more people like you in Australia. And they need bigger platforms. Do you think in Representative Government at least your opinion is getting through to our Representatives since in our system they’re supposed to replace the need for us to pay close attention?
Thanks. I think I have a small degree of influence in relation to constitutional matters, because I also do media interviews, and politicians tend to know who I am. I also often make submissions to parliamentary committees and give evidence to them. On the rare occasion, when I've tipped a bucket over a badly devised bill at a committee hearing, I've felt that I've convinced both sides and the bill has been dropped. But if there is a strong political interest in doing something, nothing I say or do will shift the dial. All I can do is spread awareness of what is going on, which is what I try to do on this channel. It doesn't have a huge audience, so there is minimal cut-through unless someone with influence sees on of my videos and uses it. But the audience is gradually growing, and one day it might of itself be a powerful tool. You never know.
I’m 17 and I like your videos, I might be your only under 18 viewer :)
Terrific. Glad you are here. Do encourage your friends.
Why wouldn't the parents take responsibility for this, why would government need to step in on what is a households responsibility?
I'll be showing my kids how VPN's work. Might lead to a whole generation learning how to bypass government restrictions, could be a great lesson for all. 😀 🙂
I know you are really busy but if you ever got the time, could you lets us know what a law would look like to stop politicians passing policy in favor of a company that they then quit government and join. Not that I know this is corruption but it doesnt look good.
As always love your work. 🙂
Like what Punters Politics covered
th-cam.com/video/pE5p8BK5HdU/w-d-xo.html
Yeah Nah, this bill is cooked but the uniparty want digital ID
This also doesn't address how social media platforms that require a parent subscription in order for a child to participate (which is most gaming platforms) will police the unregistered children of those subscriptions. My children do not register with Sony PlayStation directly or indirectly. I the playing parent do that. How does Sony police the children on it's platform that are never registered to Sony?
As a software engineer, I find the mechanism of age verification the biggest worry here. Followed closely by the definition of "social media".
You mention the cesspool of internet comments. I agree that it is a bad situation but as we can see on Facebook, attaching names and faces is not enough to clean up the comments. Not to mention we are a tiny drop in the bucket of internet traffic.
On what counts as social media. Does my blog count as social media? What if I add a comments section?
By my values the internet should not draw borders based on geography and at a technical level it is very hard to confidently say which country traffic is coming from.
I strongly believe in the right to anonymous speech even if it's abhorrent. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Any requirement to verify age necessarily implies a restriction on anonymous speech.
I do not see the benefit of this bill and I do not see the support for this bill from the public.
As a fellow software engineer, you should know that it _is_ technically feasible for the government to implement this age restriction in a way that maintains privacy. There are good reasons to expect that it won't be done that way, but it _can_ be done, in theory. There's a little more detail in the comment I made elsewhere under this video, but in short: the mechanism is what's called a blinded signature. Essentially, the government or another trusted body could sign a blinded token after verifying the person's age, and then the person could hand that token, unblinded, to the site where they wish to prove age.
@@JimCullen I don't think it's too unlikely to be done this way, it would give the government the ability to disable a persons (or even the whole countries) token(s) should they say something the government doesn't like.
@martincross.id10tgames no it wouldn't. That's the point of blinded tokens. They would be completely unable to connect a person who got age-verified to their accounts.
Unalienable rights
@@JimCullen Not only is this technically possible, it's precisely a feature of the Trust Exchange system that Bill Shorten announced a few months ago.
How about they focus on, oh I dont know, say, THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS
You know that they have been doing that, don't you? You also realise that there are several different government departments that each specialise in different areas, so that teams of people can be working on different incredibly important issues at once. This is why there could be a war somewhere so our military is doing its thing while the education department is still delivering education to kids here.
WTAF?! That’s the dumbest idea ever! Censorship writ large.
If passed it should be repealed period freedom of thought and speach is at risk & shows teaching & education is at risk in view of this a bill of rights should be requested to be adopted and. Enacted
I might set my son up with a TH-cam account just so he can be the first under 18 subscriber to your channel!
It seems that another viewer got there first - from the comments. It's still showing 0% however, so the demographic info provided by TH-cam seems a bit dodgy. But do encourage him to join a very select group!
That says it all. If a highly educated person like yourself find it difficult to link the intention of the bill with the perceived harm, how does the average person mend to understand?
Parents can just set up an account and let their children have access. Simples
Or use a VPN. Or use a fake birth date. Or any other of a raft of different approaches. It is idiotic.
I believe ways around these bills would already exist.. Critically harsh bullying already exists on messaging apps.. Also any discord irc snap chat.. It's up to you the parent to know if your child is being manipulated online... It happens to adults also.... You stop your kids from doing drugs and being abused by the local gangs? That's all online now.. Be a parent!!
Excuse me..? Penalty units?.. Social credit score?
Excuse me.. Pardon?...
For data privacy there should be an external verification auditor with negative and positive vetting. Automatic escalating fines for breaches.
This is digital id by stealth. Whats the bet that the digital id database gets hacked.
A Digital ID has already passed both houses on May 16 and comes into effect on December 1. No one seems to know this.
Copy and past this into a search engine.
The Digital ID Bill Parliament of Australia
@@davidnowhere2637 who voted for it?
Can't understand why gambling platforms are not covered by the U16 ban, when gambling is such a major social problem.
Glad to see TH-cam excluded, as there are numerous worthy TH-cam sites. I have used them for teaching English language to refugees.
There are numerous international VPNs which Australians could connect to, and pretend to be based in another country, so the ban should be easily bypassed.
How would the Australian government enforce this ban against platforms based outside Australia? They could just ignore it.
The government has an iron in the fire $$$$
@@michaelsecomb4115 Or they can do like Facebook has done when they are faced with things like Canada making it a requirement to only show local news. They addressed that by geo-blocking all news to Canada. I could easily see the various platforms deciding it is easier to geo-block us rather than work out way to verify age.
Just a comment on the end: young people do watch political education videos. My analytics show that in the past 28 days my audience was comprised of 4.7% people aged 13-17. This equates to roughly 20,300 unique viewers according to TH-cam analytics, though usually that number is lower.
There's probably more 13-17 year olds than that. Plenty of kids under 13 lie about their age making accounts, so quite a few (who did that a few years ago) would be listed 1-2 age brackets higher
@@magpielarkexactly, why would you be honest about your age when it locks you out of content that you want to get to.
Good to know, @AuspolExplained. I'm glad you are getting those numbers. Hopefully mine will eventually grow too!
The UN-WEF reaches deeper into Australia.
Change your conspiracy theory to one that might have some element of truth in it.
@@amraceway Change your rebuttal to one that is evidence based. There is plenty of evidence for WEF agenda's globally cases in point: 1. Mass immigration across western nations (which no-one voted for, and most vote against), 2. $10,000 cash ban proposals - which came from no Australian community body, Law enforcement body or politician - but from the 'bureaucracy' supported by debunked claims about 'black economy" - fortunately defeated by community action, 3. Destroying the energy systems in Western nations and in place destroying the environment with ineffective and carbon-expensive to produce solar panels and wind turbines 4. War in Ukraine to control Russia, 5. A global pandemic and follow up dangerous treatments forced on the populations. I could go on. But the fact is, these people declare exactly what they are doing - and have since at least the Georgia Guidestones, just watch the videos of their meetings.
Thoughtful assessment. Thanks for posting this!
Rushed, broad legislation that will negatively impact vastly more people than possibly will help and no clear evidence to support what the stated issues are tells me that government simply wants more control over messaging to the masses.
Last week - Misinformation~Disinformation
This week -- Social Media Limits for those under 16s.
Next week - Voting Age Reform - Under 18s to get Vote -- 😉🙂😊
Week after that ‘re-education camp bill’. After all there are people in prison in UK who tweeted - quite correctly / that the Southport killing of little girls was religiously motivated. Jail.
It sad if kids hobbies like music and art is at risk
I’m not committing a crime by posting a comment under a different name.
I just don’t want my business or family to suffer because I may have a different opinion OR decide to share it.
Even Elon Musk making liking posts on twitter has allowed people to express their opinions without being shamed or canceled by the internet.
I like your content and regardless of whether you are mainstream or controversial, my watching, liking or commenting shouldn’t mean I’m forever tarred with the brush of authority over it.
If I was of a culture or religion or employment or government that was authoritarian then I’d be silenced because I would be easy to find.
Can you not see that?
Or is that the whole idea…?
I see this as the governments way of making big money from Facebook X etc because it will be impossible to police.
Can I let my small grandkids play games like chess and solitaire on my iPad ?
The bill is only addressed at the platforms giving account to people under the age of 16s. If your grandkids don't need a personal account to play chess or solitaire on your iPad, then there's no problem.
Is there anything within our Constitution that actually benefits and empowers ordinary Australian Citizens and allows us to hold our out of control governments to account ...because I'm not seeing it?.
Every action by Governments (and the Opposition in this case), is designed to gather personal data and restrict freedoms wherever possible.
Technically a constitution is to limit the powers of governments (and of Monarchs) but in Australia's case it basically allows anything - and only allocates these powers to either the states or the federal government. The Governors and Governor General do nothing, and also even with an allocation of - say health - to the states we still have 5000 people employed by the federal health department. Also the courts do whatever they please - Lionel Murphy established the principle that justice should be ignored and only the letter of the law observed, yet when it came to COVID the courts decided to ignore this principle and instead just interpret things how they wanted them to be - this "absolutely free" travel between the states became 'not free' - such are our rights under the constitution enforced - or rather removed.
I assume the main aim of this law, is to have an excuse for them to take the next step in mandating the requirement of a digital ID!
This is a very good assessment of the proposed legislation and it’s ramifications imho
Thanks. It was an effort on a very busy day.
I believe that the primary responsibility should be to prevent and swiftly remove content that is illegal in the "real world," rather than focusing solely on restricting access for users under 16 years old. Using social media has become an essential part of navigating today’s social and professional environments worldwide. Denying access to our youth places them at a disadvantage, for example, if an under-16 Australian were to relocate overseas, (from Australia) their online engagement experience would be behind that of their peers - other students, and/or job opportunities.
Thank you so much. I saw headlines about this earlier in the week and, as a parent, was genuinely concerned. As far as I knew, we weren’t moving towards becoming a police state. (Keep the Spud outta the Lodge!)
This legislation will be as effective as the banning of pirate bay. Ie, absolutely no impact.
.....and cost a crap load of money.
How about the government focus on fixing legislatuon thats a problem instead of creating more problems.
It's not designed to track ages, it's designed to bring in digital ID so they know who to arrest of they disagree with the government.. see UK arrests
It's not that I don't support protecting our young people. But I honestly don't see how this proposed legislation is going to work in real life. Same with some of the other bills that have been proposed lately.
Facebook and other platforms already have ID verification systems in place that get applied randomly when issues over if someone is who they claim to be are raised, it also a tactic used by scammers.
Being in the "not having photo ID" class of citizens, I clearly understand how I will be disadvantaged, but would prefer some consistency on enforcement to waiting for AI or randos who disagree with me to mass report me and get my accounts frozen
Why are they trying to get it done "by Christmas"?
Control, control, control that's all it's about!! I'm very sorry for anyone who has been the subject or effected by bullying etc but as a 64 yr old its always gone on and there was no internet in my day. Agree it's more prevalent and probably easier as it can be done anonymously and witnessed/viewed by more people today but I don't see this bill serving any useful purpose other than control.
Every politician signed up to the e-safety online ACT ACT
Public identity for commenting is fine, so long as people also have freedom of speech, specifically the freedom to denounce religion.
Does this mean that the young people of Australia will be unable to participate in this online creator economy that has made so many other countries youth filthy rich? Sounds like a massive disadvantage for the young Australians who might have become famous content creators who will now no longer have that option.
I also find it really strange how much the government cares about Australian childrens well being online but do nothing to assist so many families who are severely struggling due to this hyper inflated economy with their housing or food. My neighbours have been pouring buckets of water over their kids for bathes because they are unable to fix their shower or pay for the hot water so they leave buckets of water in the sun to let them heat up during the day.
One might expect teaching the older folk what they have probably missed about the real significance and practices of Constitutional Democracy, always the current problem, to be at the top of the list of viewers who wil be affecting their children and children's children etc.
Bit of a key communication Principle and absolutely necessary.
Gret thanks to CC of course.
Kids are bullied at school. They are exposed to harmful words from other students. It’s not safe. I propose all children are home schooled until the age of 18. A ridiculous idea? It certainly is, but it’s rationale is not too different than the proposed bill. And the actual harm will be to the children.
It's not the same. It's not just about bullying it's also about access to porn and other content not okay for kids and teens.
Words are NOT harmful unless they incite a physical assault.
Words CAN be ignored and it’s about time that parents started to teach their kids that again.
As for unsuitable content - isn’t that what parental controls and the eSafety Commission is supposed to be for? Why are we paying that woman half a million dollars a year to ensure child safety? What a joke!
@@EleanorL_20 Matt Canavan asked about pornhub today. The video is on X under Aus vs The Agenda. I believe that Malcolm Roberts also asked as well.
@@EleanorL_20 You think they are not exposed to this at Schools? Now even in books that win Prime Minister's awards.
Another bad law, how much more do we have to put up with.
One point at 11min 30s in: you can have ID verification with anonymous or pseudonymous posting. Given the US founding fathers themselves were writing pseudonymously, as did Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Lewis Carrol, George Orwell and many female writers, we can't really assume that ID verification would lead to visible identification of comments. Just that there'd be easier recourse against speech.
If pseudonyms were made illegal, then in essence you're removing capacity for selective disclosure of identity. To me this is a major privacy concern (would usernames in a game be valid? would nicknames on facebook be?) and a free speech issue (due to chilling effects).
so much for Labor’s pledge reinstate some of the process rigour that had been missing for a few decades
This bill is more about helping newspapers, TV and radio to survive by putting obstacles in the way of the crowds of people giving up on their rubbish content and changing over to social media sites for news, education and entertainment. That's why old media are singing it's praises without a hint of scrutiny. The under 16 protection excuse is just a smoke screen in my opinion and I have an 11 year old.
I absolutely agree. Meanwhile the old media run gambling ads in prime time sport. Precisely by sheer coincidence when young eyeballs are ripe for the picking.
Thankyou for this. TH-cam suggested it and I think it’s a great suggestion.
I agree with you. As someone who wants to potentially start a support service for people with rare and complex illness, I am aware that that means various very isolated kids wouldn’t have that support. I am fully trained to assist them but reality is, I have been very unwell since I was 11 years old. Now, a number of decades later, I remain extremely isolated. Now to be clear: I have said for a very long time that it’s wise of those of us who’ve learnt lessons with social media to teach them to younger generations for example…. I don’t have notifications on! Even for normal text messages, especially overnight it is only limited to those that are essential. I turn off my phone in appointments, I put my phone away on the times I am with another human being in the flesh (unless waiting for a known and important call, like yesterday waiting for the hospital to ring!). I do not think that this bill assists the protection of young people at all, and rather I’d love to see two things happen: 1. That parents are educated on options that they can utilise to assist their kids with social media. My experience in working with parents of young people isn’t that most don’t care, they just don’t know and need support to implement things. Then, I’d love to see reintroduced into the school curriculum (which I know is excessively full but often with things that maybe aren’t as helpful as once thought to be), education around civics, economics and the law. It’s basic stuff but hey, if they could at least name the components of government in their own state they have a better chance at engaging in the process later on. Economics because while not everyone is going to manage multi million dollar companies, they do need to manage their own budget and far too many cannot. When you’re lost in social media world, you’re not necessarily working and budgeting and thus losing that skill. And then most importantly….. teaching kids critical thinking. Understanding propaganda, thinking through questions, how do we debate a topic (without resorting to name calling!) and so forth. These are skills that would help every child and be more effective and manage social media better.
I think that removing under 16’s from social media doesn’t help when the companies aren’t removing pornography and similar ACTUAL issues like that.
The only point I somewhat disagree on is…. I do think anonymity is important where needed. Do I think it would prevent trolls? Yes I agree there. But for me, who IS isolated and does speak online and encourage people in DM’s etc (without being derogatory), I know my actual physical safety would be at risk if identified and not from other users per se. Yes this is appropriately reported but if I have to give my identity to all social media, it would mean I couldn’t start a needed support service, I couldn’t connect with people especially around the world (rare and complex does mean it’s not limited to Australia) and I would then have to choose between my life being at risk or not. Given my mother was a lecturer in internet security before retiring, she would agree that identification online isn’t safe. I don’t post pictures of me or my location. It’s up to others what they do, but that’s where wider education would be helpful than a ban on youth under 16. Just my opinion.
Irrespective, so glad TH-cam suggested your channel to me! I always enjoy hearing good and thoughtful ideas (something sorely lacking in much of society) and definitely look forward to more of your commentary. Thankyou.
One point is that cross platform sharing will still be available, one assumes, then material from a banned platform could be shared by an adult to a minor on an open messaging app
There is no legal prohibition on adults giving children access to social media - eg an adult establishing an account and giving their child the password so the child can access it whenever they want. The only legal prohibition is directed at the platform, requiring it to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having their own account.
"Fuelung conspiracy theories" - you makes people suspicious and resentful of unwarranted government intrusion into people's private lives?
"You makes people suspicious and resentful". I actually think Constitutional Clarion encourages people to think and to question. That's a good thing.
God Save The King…
God Bless the UK!
Greetings from the Queen among the 27 Million Happy Australians.
Iya Pacifico-Huggins.
You make some really good points! Thank you
You're welcome.
They asked this question in my constitutional exam
Also as a current law student am loving this channel
Hope I'm not pre-empting exam answers!
@constitutionalclarion1901 Had a question based on a scenario a couple weeks before I watched this video. Would definitely of seen this before I went into Mt exam though ahaha.
I am very amused by the idea of young people watching the Clarion to protest government policy!
Should we put kids in a bubble until they are 18, then let them out into a world you can’t navigate, or do we let parents parent and let them teach their children how to live in the world?
The problem is that social media has been shown to harm children's development. And some bloody irresponsible parent allow their 10 year olds to access it. Which brings themes into the classroom that 10 year olds should not be exposed to.
I all for not coddling our children, but within reason. I dont want some irresponsible parents affecting the development of my kids. Let them ruin their own kids lives
@ yes I understand that argument but I don’t think that we can legislate stupid out of every scenario. It comes at a cost.
The separation of powers is being abused. More judicial power to politicians is how they like it, like ministerial discretion over gold mines.
Hi Professor.
PART V
(s) 51. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution...
I suppose a responsible government 1890 is different to responsible government 2024
🌏🇦🇺
I have never come across a more steaming pile of legislative excrement. Australia really is a nanny state. And a really dumb one at that.
I can just see millions of us applying for an exemption, and a backlog of decades, waiting for a response. Will every school now have their own Web Master? New I.T. jobs will abound.