Re: Banning Social Media For Under-16s

On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:36:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote
>

Australia has put in place a law to ban accessto social media for  
under-16s,

>
And it remains to be seen how enforceable that is.
>
No chance in reality
>

and New Zealand is looking to follow suit. Here is an
interview, by Samantha Hayes of Stuff, of the “Premier” (as the
Aussies insist on calling the state Chief Ministers in their
Federation -- don’t they know that “Premier” is shortened journalese
for “Prime Minister”?) of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, the
instigator of the Aussie law
<https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360690772/one-thing-architect-australias-social-media-ban-under-16s-would-do-differently>.

>

One of our local pro-right-wing-wannabe parties insists the law would
be “unworkable”.

>
Corse it is
>

Yes, Malinauskas admits that bans on underage
smoking, drinking and now social media are never 100% effective. But
they greatly reduce the incidence of the activity, and that is what
leads to harm reduction.

>
That last remains to be seen
>

Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work.

>
Just as true of the ban
>

Because if it had worked, we would have seen
the results, after more than 20 years of their activities. The fact
that things are, if anything, worse now than when they started, shows
the uselessness of trusting them.

>
The ban is even more useless
>

Years ago one had to have a card for adult sites, it failed
These snout and trotters in trough just rehashing what failed in past
--
Petzl