Social media isn't a problem.
The incentives in our social and economic systems are the problem.
The rich want you to focus on anything besides the wealth inequality that causes almost all other problems
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
91 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
4675 readers
105 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pretty sure you still see ads on YouTube when logged out. And maybe even less personalisation makes it default more to alcohol and gambling ads
They're just as personalized. Google knows everything.
Indulge in neither… I wish it would advertise things I actually want and am looking for /hj
It just goes to show how out of touch politicians are.
As a parent of two primary schoolers. (Yeah yeah cliché qualifier) Things I'm more concerned about than social media:
- Them never being able to buy a fucking house or afford any kind of living standard because apparently property market must go brrr. Everything they do is about propping up established home owners ensuring profits for the banks.
- Corruption and lobbying
- Doing fuck all about climate change and environmental destruction. Stop.fucking.clearing.vegetation.
- Alcohol and gambling adds
- Air quality / emissions from transport. Fuck Albo's watered down vehicle emissions rules that are going to encourage more diesel SUV use. Diesel is next in line after pdfiles and religion for things I don't want near kids.
2.5 years since the gambling report was handed down.
6 months is how long Parliamentary rules say Government has to respond to a report.
Still no response to any of its recommendations.
Wasn’t their response to disregard it? I recall seeing Labor ball suckers on Reddit saying they’re keeping the ads because of possible job losses.
‘w3 n33d 2 w3@n tHeM oFf AdZ’ was one classic I saw.
No, there hasn't even been that, officially. There's been no response at all. A response of "thanks but no thanks" would at least put it on the record, but they haven't gone that far.
Yeah they’re fucking disappointing. The position that it will cost jobs is bullshit.
Labor gonna labe.
It's not actually related to the review into online gambling from 2023, but your comment reminds me of the pokies issue. We're constantly told that pubs and clubs have to be allowed to have pokies, because otherwise they'd go out of business and lose jobs! Never mind the fact that things seem to work completely fine in Western Australia. They worked fine in Queensland (with the exception of some people nipping over the border to Tweed) until 1992. And they work fine in the entire rest of the world that largely don't permit rampant pokies in non-gambling venues.
Sure, it would be a problem to remove something they've been reliant on for so long overnight. But a gradual, phased reduction of pokies in pubs and clubs on a clear timetable would certainly not be harmful.
Everything the federal government does is to the benefit of either Murdoch Media, the gambling empire, landlords or the mining industry.
I could also suggest that this ban was effected so Rupert could drive traffic to his news websites.
Seriously. Every law always benefits one of them.
Do you think many 12 year olds are visiting Rupert's news sites ?
None, and Rupert wants to change that.
Nah, they're watching Sky News on YouTube and tiktok. They don't even need an account on YouTube!
Very true
The SA premier (SDA supported ofcourse) was apparently influential in the push for national social media laws. He recently emailed parents of school kids to promote waitmate who are like a purity ring thing for mobile phones. Abstinence but for phones instead of sex.
Apparently they are based on a similar US org. Does anyone know who is behind it? I looked at the committee and it looks like two couples, one with a law firm connections and another in PR and someone else. Wonder if they are foreign backed or backed by religion, gambling etc. SA taxpayers are going to be contributing $6.5million dollars to this orgs campaign here. It's not like we have any homelessness or cost of living issues to spend the money on.
Just bought my tween a phone, locked down ofcourse. I control the apps and contacts and content. I don't know what these people are on. I swear it is another satanic panic.
Edit: waitmate appears to be a near clone of waituntil8th (8th grade) a US org founded by Brooke Shannon. It is hard to dig further. I have seen glowing discussions about it on US social conservative websites and Catholic websites which I guess is how it got to the attention of our Premier. It looks to me like phones might be the new rock'n'roll. Banning them could be a moral crusade it seems. After the ACL and Greens tried to restrict NSW pokies who knows who the gambling industry might align with if it preserves their business.
Yes gambling gets a pass every time in this country. The only state where Greyhound racing is banned is ACT. Tas plans to phase it out by 2029
'Social Media Account Ban' kids can still browse and share a lot of harmful content on youtube etc.
And it all clicks into place.
Oh please. Just because some assholes decided that the ban might be tangentially good for their business does not mean that the ban is not good.
This is exactly the false sense of security many ban critics warned about. Politicians and parents now think kids are magically “safe,” even though kids are trivially bypassing the ban. Meanwhile, the adults who might have educated those kids about online gambling risks—a problem that heavily targets teenage boys—now assume the government has handled it. Gambling ads stay up, kids stay online, and everyone pretends the problem is solved.
This assertion is completely unsupported. If this then that then that then that.
"Oh we couldn't possibly do anything about the problems caused by social media because gambling ads are also a whole other problem which has not been addressed".
But everyone with half a brain will acknowledge that it was very poorly implemented.
I reckon the Gambling Ads should still be banned.
Children are still hurt when mummy and daddy donate their entire paycheck to the Lloyd Williams retirement fund.
The implementation has been complained about ad nauseum. No need to re-hash the tired old arguments here. In 10 years time we'll see how it's worked out.
Of course gambling ads should be banned, but that's not a reason not to ban social for kids.
The ban is not good though, any means of enforcing it completely undermines the concepts of online privacy and an open internet.
I couldn't care less.
The war for an open internet and online privacy has been lost a long time ago.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is an imperfect solution to a huge problem, and if it mitigates the impact on the kids of today and tomorrow then so be it.
I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of the good, but I'll always be an enemy to evil, which this ban clearly is.
This sort of thing is so clearly motivated by the frustration of the powers that be over having lost control of the narrative over the genocide in Gaza, and a bunch of cantankerous cretins from the Cretaceous who can't cope coexisting with kids in their communities are all too happy to sacrifice basic civil liberties over it for some reason.
This is so fucking stupid.
Not to mention it is counter productive in a number of ways. I have lost the ability to monitor my kids YouTube usage, the kids are just going to move to alternate platforms, and I am amongst the cohort of sensible Australians who will refuse to use social media before I provide some dodgy AI company my ID, it's going to be a lot harder to convince my kids to do the same once all their friends and peers start ratcheting up the conformity pressure after they turn 16. This whole thing isn't misguided, it's a betrayal of the majority of Australians who are too dumb to realise what they are giving away to access these services.
You have opened my eyes to some important issues I had not considered before.
This law actually hurts parents who have actively looked out for their kids. They've been nurturing them, showing them the bad things that are on social media. Teaching them about critical thinking, how to spot bias. How to be aware of algorithms leading you down a path.
Is this the new age prohibition? We all know how that went.
But instead of banning it for everyone, we ban it for those who are youngest, most susceptible, and most unaware of the dangers? Does this put those children who would have been mentored and instructed by good parents and guided over years and throw them to the wolves? And prevent good, active parenting ?
What a silly thing to say. This law doesn't stop parents teaching their kids they evils of social media.
No, what it does is removes agency from parents and tells us that we aren't capable of raising our kids, the government will have to do it. My kids have been asking, for several years, to get Facebook accounts so they can use marketplace. I used that desire to have a frank discussion with them about how predatory Facebook is and how sinister it is that they have subsumed so many things that used to be independent and didn't require an account with them specifically so they can lock users in and Hoover up more data. I have told the kids that if they want Facebook accounts after they turn 18 they are welcome to open them then, but until that day I am not allowing them to give up their privacy. Do I seem disengaged as a parent?
Yes you really do seem... disengaged as a parent.
Prior to the ban, most parents wouldn't tell their kids they couldn't use social for fear of making them pariahs - excluded from something their peers are partaking of.
The ban provides parents with the agency to restrict their kids from using social, because at least the majority of kids won't be there.
I dont see how the ban prevents you from having conversations with your children?
So at this point I have to ask if you have experience raising children, because I have raising five of them and the last part of their comment describes excellent parenting, social media law or no.
For the record, I think this law is ineffective and I agree with the point raised in numbered form earlier of this government giving us things we don’t want or need, and ignoring the stuff we do.
Which part are you referring to?
Are you honestly suggesting that imposing a hard requirement for your children to exclude themselves from the platforms on which their peers are engaging with each other is good parenting?
You personally may not want this ban, but it has overwhelming support from parents generally. Its not even a divisive issue, it has bipartisan support. Thats not to say you cant criticise it, merely that "we" really did ask for this.
imposing a hard requirement…
So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? Does your whole point ride around peer ridicule, based on who applies the ban, or the ban itself?
Yeah I am honestly suggesting, because parents are better at that, given they know their own children better than most and the situation they’re in. And that it’s their role here, not the federal governments.
it has bipartisan support
So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does. It’s a contributor why we’re called ‘the lucky country’.
This policy is lucky country policy.
’we’ really asked for this
No we didn’t. We asked for gambling ads to be removed and a solution to the housing crisis.
So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to?
I can't believe I need to spell this out but here goes.
If kids are generally interacting with each other on social media, then excluding your own child from that will make them a pariah. You know, like the kid that can't go on the school camp because reasons.
With the recent ban, kids are no longer "generally interacting" with each other on social media. It doesn't matter that some will inevitably circumvent the ban. This gives parents the opportunity to enforce boundaries.
it’s their role here, not the federal governments.
Nonsense. Federal government's impose age restrictions on all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. There are legislated ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving, et cetera.
So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does.
If something has bipartisan support then more or less by definition, you can't argue that "we" didn't ask for it, because everyone's representatives are asking for it.
If kids…
By my experience, that didn’t happen. To them or most of their friends. Yes, I know it didn’t, the last one just left school and they were honest with us about it.
ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving
Are vastly different from engaging in social networks. That’s why good parents object to this.
I’ll ask again; do you have any experience raising children. For that matter, drinking or driving?
if something has bipartisan support
It doesn’t mean it’s in our interest and often means it’s lucky country politics.
I do have kids approaching this age, but I dont see how thats relevant.
Even as a childless bachelor, any idiot can conclude that children spending less time on social media is good for society.
It’s relevant because a lot of us who have raised children understand where the government has gone wrong with this.
That doesn’t mean we all agree, some parents who’ve been through this agree with the law, as you said.
The peer pressure, if it happens, will continue; that’s something I’ll let you know now before yours get to that age. In fact it’ll be stronger because this time they’re really being a rebel; it’s not just mum and dad.
Any idiot concluding that keeping children off social networks is a good thing, is not the same as a government introducing flawed legislation to do that, legislation which will be ineffective. As for what other problems arise from this, we have to wait and see.
Edit: they’re for you’re, third paragraph.
Edit 2: last paragraph for clarity
I started writing out a detailed reply going into all the nuance, but I feel that it's a waste of time. I'm not sure if you are trolling as such, but you are being deliberately obtuse. I actually feel like you understand the points that people are making to you quite clearly. This is terrible legislation, it's a knee jerk reaction to a complex problem, with very few exceptions this is almost always a bad way of enacting policy.
The jab at my parenting because I already do the things you claim parents are too feeble to do without the government holding their hand is admittedly irritating, but I am going to choose to move past it.
This is the brainfart of a conservative grifter, it's satanic panic, it's the war on drugs, it's another populist policy being pitched at the unintelligent to draw their attention while the business and political interests behind it are picking their pocket. You choose not to see it that way then fine, but we both know it's true.
I am going to stop engaging with you now, feel free to have as many last says and derisive put downs as you want. I will not be reading them.
What jab about your parenting? You seem kinda defensive about that actually. Maybe get that looked at.
Parental controls on most devices will allow you to monitor and regulate your kid's youtube usage, and block alternative platforms.
Having to provide ID to access services isn't ideal, but in the context of everything else people provide to social media it doesn't seem very significant to me?
Suggesting that this is some kind of "betrayal" is overly dramatic, sorry.
The parental controls I had? That worked just fine? That no longer work as the kids are force logged out of YouTube until they have turned 16. Or do you mean I should engage with Microsoft's virtual spyware? Sorry but we are an opt out family and I do all I can to block telemetry and surveillance as I think my kids deserve better than to be reduced to a profile on a server. What do you use to monitor your kids activity online?
Do you not see the betrayal of our elected officials bowing to minority interests and pursuing policies that are, at very best, counterproductive, and at worst a distraction, that experts are telling them will not have the intended outcomes, to give them an excuse to avoid legislating the harder things? A deciding factor for my preferences at the last election was to minimise the creeping advance of the surveillance state that Dutton so obviously desperately wanted to push through... We are getting it anyway.
We keep moving further and further away from privacy and security in the face of the spooky spectres of "terrorism" and "protecting the children" but once we have handed those things over they are almost impossibly hard to regain. When we look back in 10 years and realise we voluntarily handed the government and big business all the info they need to monitor our every movement online at all times and got nothing in return how do we stuff that Genie back in the bottle?
Sorry chief this is just plain nutty.
I cant really respond to that.
By all means continue believing that wanting to reduce the impact of corporate profiteering on children is "evil".