Make absolutely no mistake. The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas.
These laws are designed to prevent generations from establishing a baseline sociopolitical coherency and unity.
I was subject to a home firewall and computer use surveillance as a child for the exact same reason, because my cult guardians did not want me encountering unapproved ideas or networking with like-minded individuals who might weaken their ability to control and brainwash me.
I was treated as a criminal, and so my response was to educate myself deeply in how to succeed as a criminal. I learned to hack my imposed surveillance systems, and then hack websites on the web. I learned how to lie and manipulate authority in order to survive without compromising my internal compass. I collectivized with other hackers.
Is that the path we want every child subject to these bans to take? I fortunately have a moral and ethical foundation which led to me using my skills for good, but I am certainly capable of quite a lot of things that wouldn't be a net good for society, and I know how to get away with it. Perhaps we shouldn't teach a generation of repressed children these skills, and institutionalize them from a young age in opposition to society.
This is the exact same mechanism used to criminalize cannabis smokers. Smoking cannabis in my late teens and early twenties in a state where it was illegal led me to learning quite a lot about how to navigate the criminal underbelly of the world. The "gateway drug" rhetoric becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, enacted by the very people who lie through their teeth about their intentions.
Oppose these laws. Violently, if necessary. If you are a child, learn how to protect yourself online, familiarize yourself with security culture, and continue to safely and covertly network with other children online.
Form strong bonds. Collectivize. Create art, study politics and science. Make lasting, useful connections. Broadcast and distribute your opinions and demands of your governing bodies.
This is what being a child growing up on the internet is about. I owe everything in my life to my formative years on the internet. It was an escape hatch from my abusive home. I learned a lot, and formed precious memories joining and starting forums and chat rooms in my youth. I would probably be dead today without the web.
Attack the real problem. The techniques which certain social media sites use to manipulate and hook children and others are well-documented. Ban them. Make an example of their practitioners. The web that I grew up on did not have these problems.
Fuck Australia, and fuck every other person who dares to suggest that children should not be allowed to congregate safely online and be allowed to navigate society and culture according to their own compass.
I think it's safe to say that, in under-16s, cyberbullying and susceptibility to intentionally addictive social media algorithms are a bit more of a common problem than revolutionary activities. Any would-be Che Guevaras can put in the time arousing the working class in person until such time as they can grow facial hair.
Then we attack the systemic issues, instead of pushing through intentionally vague legislation. Some of the similar legislation being explored by multiple US states is frightening.
Opposing a social media law “violently” is not an appropriate call to action. That said, the web of yesteryear and the way kids use social media today could not be any more different. Kids mindlessly scrolling through oceans of vanity, teen girls with more and more suicidal, being stuck in the high-school bullying social environment 24/7. The laws are a response to a real issue — especially as parents themselves get addicted / stuck in the same ways. They have kids and are rightfully fearful. I grew up in the same awesome web, but it sucks now, commercialized and tapped for every last cent it can produce.
> Opposing a social media law “violently” is not an appropriate call to action.
Every single ounce of freedom you enjoy today was won with bloodshed. There is nothing extreme about reminding your local legalized mafia who is actually in charge: the People. Your compromised governments work hard to condition you to think otherwise.
Direct political violence should always an absolute last resort, when every other realistic option has been exhausted. However, every freedom is ultimately backed by threat of violence, even when it isn't said aloud.
> The laws are a response to a real issue
They use a real issue as a vehicle for tightening the authoritarian ratchet. All good antidemocratic legislation is wrapped in legitimate issues. But what authoritarian governments such as Australia fear is the power of unification which the internet offers new generations.
You may also be just the right age to have had access to an internet less dominated by doomscrolling and bullying.
I think there was a ton of bullying depending on what part of the internet you spent your time in, but importantly it was very easy to find inclusive, safe spaces.
Today, it is not as easy. This is probably part of why so many have moved to group chats and direct messages for online interaction in recent years.
Sorry, but it’s rubbish.
Are you saying that all the people who were 16 and grew up without social media had no social connections? Didn’t form strong bonds with their peers?
Social media is absolutely terrible for kids. Social media absolutely destroyed social skills in teens.
I personally lived in a very backwater state, surrounded by racist conservatives, and was raised hardcore Catholic by extremely abusive guardians. I owe every single ounce of my rationality to the web and the ideas and people I encountered there.
Facebook, etc are definitely terrible for kids. But the wording of these laws is intentionally vague, in order for these kinds of laws to be used according to the whim of the incumbent, as a tool of oppression.
I hate to break it to you, but rest of the world is not US and have different socio-cultural dynamics.
Regardless. We should optimize the outcomes for the collective good, and not for the corner cases. Of course it has its cost.
Even the US is not anything like the childhood environment described by GP, for most children.
I think that's pretty obvious, no?
The entire point is that I got to grow up with a wide variety of opinions and ideas from people across the world.
I have good friends all over the world today thanks to the web. We have influenced and helped each other over the years. We depend on each other. That's not a corner case.
> I got to grow up with a wide variety of opinions and ideas from people across the world.
You got to grow up with the vocal minority on the internet, in otherwords the 4% of the worlds population which is most extreme in their views and most arrogant in how they express them.
That is entirely an assumption on your part, one which reveals your inherent biases. My experience was not at all as you describe.
You have no idea how I spent my time on the web overall just because I gave you a glimpse into a single aspect of my intersectional experience on the web.
Such a Narcissistic reply, there was no assumption about you on my part at all. I was refering to the fact that only 4% of the worlds population are vocal on the internet.
Anyone thinking they are being exposed to a wide range of people and personalities on the internet is very mistaken. Its a very narrow sliver of humanity that goes online and engages in online posting.
> You got to grow up with the vocal minority on the internet, in otherwords the 4% of the worlds population which is most extreme in their views and most arrogant in how they express them.
This is a de facto assumption. You assumed a situation which was not reality.
> 4% of the worlds population are vocal on the internet.
Conjecture, unsubstantiated percentage. Rooted in your own biased and demonstrably incomplete understanding of the internet.
> Anyone thinking they are being exposed to a wide range of people and personalities on the internet is very mistaken
I don't think you understand just how many people are on the internet. I get exposed to a wealth of different cultures and ideas, even moreso today.
Also, please refrain from devolving into insults and accusations of narcissism. Not only is that a textbook identity fallacy, but there is nothing narcissistic about simply pushing back against biased judgement.
> This is a de facto assumption. You assumed a situation which was not reality.
Nope, no assumptions there.
> Conjecture, unsubstantiated percentage. Rooted in your own biased and demonstrably incomplete understanding of the internet.
I'll give you this one, my percentage was out of date. The current percentage is estimated to be 10%.
> I don't think you understand just how many people are on the internet.
I dont think you understand how little are. 67.5% of the world currently have access to the internet, and the majority of that is intermittant and shareddevices in Africa and Asia. Thats many billions of people that do not even own a device with a web browser, let alone indulge in conversations with strangers on social media and forums.
> Also, please refrain from devolving into insults and accusations of narcissism.
There were no insults or accusations. I said your reply was Narcissistic, I did not say you were.
You keep reading what you want to in my posts to support your extremism and outrage. Please dont, nobody is accusing you of anything. You can calm down now!
Well that goes a long way to explaining your quite extreme views.
You're flirting with an identity fallacy here, but please, explain which part of my views are extreme.
>The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas.
Thats a pretty extreme view to any normal person who didnt grow up on the internet.
EDIT: please stop editing your posts after posting, it makes them most difficult to respond to properly.
You also need to make a case for why it's extreme. Simply labeling it as extreme is not enough. Why is it extreme?
No I dont, I am done feeding the trolls. Feel free to retort whatever makes you feel most superior.
Rising up violently to protect my child's right to scroll mindless on TikTok for hours? No. Social media today is unrecognisable to the internet that you, or I grew up with.
Children will always network, and share ideas and form community. They don't need to do it on a platform designed to exploit as much of their attention as possible as a way to sell advertisements.
I think children should be able to congregate safely online. If you think a meta-owned platform is a good place to do that, I've got bad news for you.
I think a lot of my generation owes a lot to the internet during our formative years too, but the idea that Meta offers anything other than a curated stream of addictive ragebait nowadays is for the birds. Maybe this ban will encourage teenagers to hang out in less corporately owned spaces online. I can hope.
An outright ban probably won't work, but it sends a signal that perhaps society needs to use the internet better to be a benefit.
The problem is that the wording of these laws carry a common thread of intentional vagueness, such that the laws can be abused for ideological persecution and maintaining the status quo.
I'm all for directly banning certain practices Meta and others engage in, within scope. I'm completely opposed to ideological oppression.