Re: Banning Social Media For Under-16s

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> writes:

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

It is more likely to be about pointing the finger of blame than
achieving anything. Once there is a law requiring social media companies
to ban, the government can say it is their fault for not doing it.