The law would make Australia one of the first countries in the world to impose an age restriction on social media, but opponents say it could drive online activity underground.
Australia plans to set a minimum age limit for children to use social media citing concerns about mental and physical health, drawing a backlash from digital rights advocates who warn the measure could drive dangerous online activity underground.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his center-left government would run an age verification trial before introducing age minimum laws for social media this year.
Albanese did not specify an age but said it would most likely be between 14 and 16.
Blocking children from online communities is blocking them from seeing external views outside of the bubbles their parents indoctrinate them into, it’s blocking them from seeing information to realise if they’re in an abusive situation and seeking help, it’s marginalising LGBT+ youth if, through no fault of their own, they happen to be born to ultra religious or LGBT+ phobic parents.
It also exposes children to war, murder, and other atrocities that someone that young shouldn’t be exposed to and will have serious long term mental health affects.
IMO this video touches on this incredibly well and is well worth it. https://youtu.be/hYWoNlMHd2k
The video seems to mostly be nostalgia and her lamenting over the death of the consumerist mall based culture she grew up in and trying to naturalize it or imply it’s the right way to grow up, ie. Kids these days. Half the video seems to be about how companies aren’t marketing to preteens which I’m fine with and is pretty normal in even recent historical terms. The 90s-10s marketing specifically to preteens on cable is more an anomaly then anything natural. If you were 11 in the 70s no one was marketing to you and when you went to the department store there was a kids section and an adults section for you to look through, I’m sure people who grew up then had fond memories of first exploring the adult section just as much as the author does of going to Claire’s.
I did find it funny when she said the advertisements didn’t effect her. Those ads and media were selling you a vision of what a happy preteen lifestyle is and you bought it so much you made a whole video years later on how that vision is correct.
As for the atrocities I don’t think kids are watching that. As someone who grew up with full Internet access in my preteen years I could’ve looked up isis beheading videos or famines in Africa, but I didn’t because 11 year olds don’t care about that stuff. Even pre internet if a kid had access to cable they could watch CNN and see all the horrors of the world but they don’t because it’s boring.
None of this is to say that I think social media is fine for preteens, but the reasons I think it’s bad like decreased physical activity, unrealistic beauty standards, social isolation aren’t shown in this video, I’m sure she has others addressing it but the death of the preteen market doesn’t seem like the best reason to ban it for preteens.
CNN heavily censors what they show online. They don’t show an actual beheading, they’ll show a few minutes before it happens with faces blurred, but thats about it. But did you never really randomly get sent some fucked up videos? No 2 girls 1 cup, 1 guy 1 jar, meatspin etc? Kids don’t want to see it, but they’ll accidentally see it.
Honestly what I hate the most about the video is that 3rd places only briefly get a mention. But at the same time it makes sense since the video is about advertising to tweens and not just overall their mental wellbeing. It just happens to touch on the topic pretty well.
did you not get sent some fucked up videos
Oh yeah, all that shit, I wasn’t talking about porn and fetish stuff though cause my comment was getting long, was just talking about actual atrocities like war, famine genocide etc. I don’t think preteens have an interest in that stuff. They definitely do have an interest in porn / gross stuff but I’m not convinced that stuff is necessarily detrimental or traumatic. I’m open to being convinced but most of the arguments seem to be pearl clutching about them losing their innocence and anecdotally I know most of my friends watched porn / gross videos at that age and turned out fine and don’t mention it as some traumatic or life changing experience unless they tie it up with some religious guilt.
They’ll also be exposed to other external views that are a bit more unsavory. For every kid that watches a video by an LGBT creator and learns being gay is okay, there’s another kid who watches some alpha douche Andrew Tate type that teach them women are objects. The internet is the definition of a mixed bag and should not be used to educate children
Which is why we shouldn’t be relying on social media for this stuff anyway, this should be done by schools. If a child is in an oppressive abusive house they probably won’t get social media anyway, but they will more likely have to go to school. Also teachers and counselors are professionals who know how to educate children and handle abusive situations way better then some stranger online.
and you cannot use social media if they deem your chest too flat.
