I think you touch on the main point here, it's not the platforms, but rather the content, or access to that content which is an issue. And that requires parents having those discussions, as uncomfortable as they might be, with their kids. And strong parental controls on the devices. I've invested in a new Wifi Router so I can lock down access by the grandson when he visits, or even the nieces' and nephews' kids, especially with Youtube on the TV.Wow! - not a topic I expected to debate on an airline forum, but it hooked me.
IMHO this is a very complex issue, and one that, due to the amazing pace of techno change, is novel and thus we have no experience dealing with similar.
I support the ideals and intent of the ban, but feel it would not just be ineffectual, but absolutely counter-productive.
You cannot ban anything on the internet. There are ways around everything. You can make some things slightly harder, but as others have already said, make something banned and "kids" will find a way around it. There is nothing more sadly mistaken than a parent who thinks they can control their kids access to internet stuff in an adversarial manner.
I say that this would even be "counter-productive". By this I mean that after people have given themselves a pat on the back for making something illegal and thus "protecting our kids", they will then fail to tackle the underlying real issues at play. And raising children requires parental support from day 1. A parent that is looking to government regulations to keep their child safe is perhaps shifting some critical responsibilities somewhere that is not dependable or appropriate.
Bans don't work, if they cannot be enforced. Simply making things illegal may make us feel good, but is it effective?
You'd require birth date to be entered when signing up. Like anything, you can lie, but it would then come down to AFF to police. If you recall a few years ago there were two Aussie kids who wanted to start an airline and got some facetime with Alan Joyce? They were both in primary school and one ended up on AFF, but their account was paused, and they were encouraged to come back when they were older.Is AFF considered to be Social Media? If so, how would AFF ban under-16 kids?
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
I guess it's a bit like alcohol. We know it causes harm, and as such it is restricted to buy and also restricted to consume unless under parental supervision, if you're under 18.
But we also all know that most kids under 18 have access to and many will consume alcohol, perhaps except the insulated and the strong willed.
Also parallel is the behaviour modelled by parents - often a case of "do as I say, not as I do" ...
Exactly. An absolutely impossible.So, if we're going to ban the kids, how are we supposed to prove who we are?
Of course it's never the parents fault.So instead of parents complaining about the Social Media companies now they will complain that the goverment laws don't work.
I just tried to provide a theory on where this was going but was redacted for stating the obvious.So, if we're going to ban the kids, how are we supposed to prove who we are?
Can you perhaps re-phrase in a form that does not attract redaction?I just tried to provide a theory on where this was going but was redacted for stating the obvious.
I initially thought the bill wouldn't pass due to the obvious reverse issue that it will be incumbent on the adult population to prove they are over age, but then realised the bill may receive popular support due to the benefit derived from the betrayal of trust that such support may afford others in the longer term with respect to probable counter productive outcomes.Can you perhaps re-phrase in a form that does not attract redaction?
So, if we're going to ban the kids, how are we supposed to prove who we are?
I'm ashamed at how we treat children in this country.