On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:36:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wroteYears ago one had to have a card for adult sites, it failed These
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
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.
One of our local pro-right-wing-wannabe parties insists the law would
be "unworkable". 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work. 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.
Rubbish, it'll be easy for kids to fake the ID requirement. That
idiotic law effectively just enforced a compulsory course on
identity fraud for under 16s. While of coure ensuring the
government can track every honest adult social media user who does
verify using their real ID.
That idiotic law effectively just enforced a compulsory course on
identity fraud for under 16s.
The government will only be more inept at it.
On 16 May 2025 09:20:54 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
That idiotic law effectively just enforced a compulsory course on
identity fraud for under 16s.
You mean, more than they do so already?
The government will only be more inept at it.
Who would do a better job? Certainly not the companies themselves. So who?
On Thu, 15 May 2025 13:15:06 +0100, Richmond wrote:
It is more likely to be about pointing the finger of blame thanIt *is* their fault. Remember, they’ve had over 20 years to clean up their act.
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.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It *is* their fault. Remember, they’ve had over 20 years to clean up
their act.
yes, but they don't care. all they car about is making money and mining
data
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote
MightyMouse wrote
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote
It *is* their fault. Remember, they’ve had over 20 years to clean up >>>> their act.
yes, but they don't care. all they car about is making money and
mining data
Precisely. How do we make them care?
Not possible
The only force they understand is legal force.
Just not possible for that to work in this situation
On Fri, 16 May 2025 14:14:24 +1000, MightyMouse wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It *is* their fault. Remember, they?ve had over 20 years to clean up
their act.
yes, but they don't care. all they car about is making money and mining data
Precisely. How do we make them care? The only force they understand is
legal force.
Australia has put in place a law to ban access to social media for
under-16s, 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 -- dont 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. 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work. 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.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 07:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Indeed so.
Australia has put in place a law to ban access to social media for >>under-16s, 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 -- dont 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. 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work. 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.
Banning under 16s from social media will be impossible unless some
sort of digital ID is issued to everyone and which would be required
for internet access. This legislation is insidious and must be opposed
at every opportunity.
It is up to parents to supervise their children's online activity, not >politicians.
Bill.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 07:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Australia has put in place a law to ban access to social media forBanning under 16s from social media will be impossible unless some
under-16s, 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”. 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work. 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.
sort of digital ID is issued to everyone and which would be required
for internet access.
This legislation is insidious and must be opposed
at every opportunity.
It is up to parents to supervise their children's online activity, not politicians.
Bill.
On Sat, 17 May 2025 12:39:36 +1000, MightyMouse
<squeak!@cheesefactory.com> wrote:
BR wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 07:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Australia has put in place a law to ban access to social media forBanning under 16s from social media will be impossible unless some
under-16s, 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”. 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work. 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.
sort of digital ID is issued to everyone and which would be required
for internet access.
and so we march ever onward towards microchip implants
Fantasy
This legislation is insidious and must be opposed
at every opportunity.
It is up to parents to supervise their children's online activity, not
politicians.
Bill.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 07:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Australia has put in place a law to ban access to social media for >under-16s, 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?. 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police themselves
is never going to work. 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.
Banning under 16s from social media will be impossible unless some
sort of digital ID is issued to everyone and which would be required
for internet access. This legislation is insidious and must be opposed
at every opportunity.
It is up to parents to supervise their children's online activity, not politicians.
BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
It is up to parents to supervise their children's online activity, not
politicians.
Indeed. And the majority of parents are doing *such* a good job of it
and know *exactly* what their children are (not) doing.
Which is why online controls won't work, because they won't have support
of many parents...
When I was 16 I snuck into movie theatres to watch x-rated movies, which
is probably more harmful than watching them on one's phone and certainly requires far more effort.
The only solution is to actually educate kids about sex ...
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:55:17 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
Which is why online controls won't work, because they won't have support
of many parents...
It is a given, is it not, that those below a certain age are not of >sufficient maturity to make certain decisions for themselves. Thats why
our species has the concept of parents and parenting at all. Only >nowadays, society has become so complex that the parents of a child
cannot, on their own, supply sufficient guidance and care to ensure the
child grows up the right way. Thats why we have schools and
schoolteachers, for one thing.
As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. And as Marshall >McLuhan pointed out, that village is nowadays well and truly global.
When I was 16 I snuck into movie theatres to watch x-rated movies, which
is probably more harmful than watching them on one's phone and certainly
requires far more effort.
And therefore you did it less. Thats the difference.
The only solution is to actually educate kids about sex ...
Some right-wingers have religious objections to that though, dont they?
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
Greg Warren Camden Liberal mayor, blown parachuted into Campbelltown
to be Labors state NSW member of parliament "snout and trotters in
trough". Labor pay him to go to local pubs for beer and photosgoots
<https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGMTE4NDc3Lmh0bWwmYWxsPTE%3D>
https://tinyurl.com/22usema3
Fantasy on Labor paying him
Not according to my Labor party comity mates
Just because some fool claims something...
About 3am on Tuesday 6 May 2025, officers from Campbelltown Police
Area Command attended a home on Copperfield Drive, Rosemeadow, after
three men allegedly threatened a 24-year-old female occupant with a
firearm during a home invasion.
Corse nothing like that ever happened under the Libs, eh ?
In my electorate which was guaranteed Labor one till boundaries
changed
Your electorate is completely irrelevant
When they did no doubt the Lib's were trying to make a good impression
Their MP was a Local cop that lived in Campbelltown, they most
certainty listened to him and got rid of the 3M streets
Bullshit
<https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new-beginning-means-removing-kids-from-the-violence/news-story/d40e03b25b9103e87740e03e9f0a146b>
https://tinyurl.com/ycmb4nje
Just because some fuckwit journo claims something...
New beginning means removing kids from the violence
ROSEMEADOW residents tell tales of woe about failed attempts to get
help. They talk about the streets littered with rubbish, homes with
smashed walls, and junkies.
Corse nothing like that ever happened under the Libs, eh ?
Most Certainly when John Fahey went federal, his replacement was Pat
Farmer guaranteed Lib seat,
his inauguration speech was concerns about the new John Howard Flight
Paths, no uncertain terms was told to "Shut the fuck up" by the Lib's
Bullahir
Same was happing with their Labor representatives, booth parties are
not interested in looking after guaranteed seats, parachuting snout
and trotters in, they don't like locals representing them
Corse nothing like that ever happened under the Libs, eh ?
On Sat, 17 May 2025 22:38:44 +1000, MightyMouse
<squeak!@cheesefactory.com> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2025 12:39:36 +1000, MightyMouse
<squeak!@cheesefactory.com> wrote:
BR wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 07:22:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Australia has put in place a law to ban access to social media for >>>>>> under-16s, and New Zealand is looking to follow suit. Here is anBanning under 16s from social media will be impossible unless some
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”. 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.
Certainly, relying on the social media companies to police
themselves
is never going to work. 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.
sort of digital ID is issued to everyone and which would be required >>>>> for internet access.
and so we march ever onward towards microchip implants
Fantasy
people are already doing it
EVERYONE isnt
and isnt even doing that for their pets
even tho that is a legal requirement and no govt would
ever be stupid enough to require that for internet access
and complete trivial to bypass that even if they did
This legislation is insidious and must be opposed
at every opportunity.
It is up to parents to supervise their children's online activity,
not
politicians.
Bill.
As usual accomplish nothing and these parasites know it.
Kids under 21 should not be allowed smart phones, only be allowed dumb >>phones for text and voice.
eg Nokia 2780 >><https://www.amazon.com.au/Nokia-Unlocked-Universally-Compatible-Carriers/dp/B0D3RWZ39S>
https://tinyurl.com/y8rfvh9t
Also get to recognize spare the rod and spoil the child lessons to
parents how to flog them.
To many children have little respect nowadays, My town the local cop
would kick you on the bum, then tell your parents who also gave you a >>hammering then you would be mowing lawns at some oldies house for 12
months
make parents accountable for their louts actions $$$ >><https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-19/police-to-target-ringleaders-in-youth-crime-crackdown/105070820>
https://tinyurl.com/mu3fp8za
NSW Police to target 100 ringleaders in crackdown on youth crime
Uncontrollable youth gangs have always been a problem. The early 20th >century brought in legislation to have schooling compulsory up until
the age of 14. And reform and trade schools sequestered the worst.
Corporal punishment was routine, and read on...... >https://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22Give+him+a+doing%22%3a+the+birching+of+young+offenders+in+Scotland+(1).-a099019935
As usual accomplish nothing and these parasites know it.
Kids under 21 should not be allowed smart phones, only be allowed dumb
phones for text and voice.
eg Nokia 2780 ><https://www.amazon.com.au/Nokia-Unlocked-Universally-Compatible-Carriers/dp/B0D3RWZ39S>
https://tinyurl.com/y8rfvh9t
Also get to recognize spare the rod and spoil the child lessons to
parents how to flog them.
To many children have little respect nowadays, My town the local cop
would kick you on the bum, then tell your parents who also gave you a >hammering then you would be mowing lawns at some oldies house for 12
months
make parents accountable for their louts actions $$$
<https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-19/police-to-target-ringleaders-in-youth-crime-crackdown/105070820>
https://tinyurl.com/mu3fp8za
NSW Police to target 100 ringleaders in crackdown on youth crime
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:55:17 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
The only solution is to actually educate kids about sex ...
Some right-wingers have religious objections to that though, don't they?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 481 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:20:30 |
| Calls: | 9,540 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,653 |
| Messages: | 6,139,413 |
| Posted today: | 1 |