this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
61 points (91.8% liked)

World News

39161 readers
2426 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Meta has criticized Australia’s new law banning under-16s from social media, claiming the government rushed it without considering young people’s perspectives or evidence.

The law, approved after a brief inquiry, imposes fines of up to $50 million for non-compliance and has sparked global interest as a potential model for regulating social media.

Supporters argue it protects teens from harmful content, while critics, including human rights groups and mental health advocates, warn it could marginalize youth and ignore the positive impacts of social media.

Enforcement and technical feasibility remain significant concerns.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 8 points 1 hour ago
[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 49 minutes ago

Well then those kids should have voted. ... Oh. ;)

[–] Taniwha420@lemmy.world 71 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Fuck off, Meta. My children tell me they want to try cigarettes, driving, using an excavator, and rifles and every time I fail to consider their voices. Actually, I consider it and the answer is an easy, "no." Considering the evidence, social media like FB appears to be quite deleterious to people's mental health, young people in particular.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 hours ago

100% - Meta's opinion on this matter is absolutely irrelevant.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

I’d let them try out an excavator as long as I got a turn, too.

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)
[–] Frog@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I use social media from time to time. The amount of misinformation that is created and spewed without consequence is really alarming. A lot of it is dangerous. People give medical advice and pretend to be doctors. That should be illegal.

If they could filter out all the garbage content and just have children cartoons, comics, food, and cute animals, I would be fine letting kids watch it from time to time.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 6 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Pretending to be a doctor is illegal.

[–] Frog@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Some ways I saw around this is by being in another country, and/or getting some bullshit PhD. I see a lot of chiropractors giving nutrition advice.

Even if they don't call themselves doctor, they will say they are a medical practitioner, or health expert because of their self published PDF book or their shitty blog.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 54 minutes ago

Not only that, lots of things that sound like official medical titles aren’t. As such they aren’t protected at all but do mislead the public.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't stop karen from pushing essential oils and crystal healing.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

Did she do her own research at least?

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 minutes ago

Well, she didn't publish so who knows?

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

You don't consider Lemmy social media? Honest question.

That's an actual issue I see with this law: how does one define social media? I've seen YouTube described as social media which I find highly dubious but I can't really explain why.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Under 16 year olds probably shouldnt be on lemmy either.

Even this tiny social media network has plenty of misinformation and bullshit a tween/teen likely could not parse well.

[–] Frog@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I do consider Lemmy and Reddit and other content aggregators social media.

I might be mistaken but I think being able to comment on YouTube and anyone is able to upload a video puts it in the social media category.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that make many (most?) news sites social media since they let you comment on articles? (IMDB dodged a bullet?)

[–] Frog@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Sorry I edited my comment. I think the difference, not just being able to comment, but is being able to post. Like not everyone is able to post an article in Gizmodo but anyone can post a video on YouTube, or a story on Instagram.

This is just my own thoughts on it. I don't actually know what the official definition of social media is.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago

Ah, I see what you're saying. That might be a way of looking at it.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 24 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure cigarettes went through the same thing. Harder to hook them when they're older if you don't hook em young.

Yeah. This rings of tobacco companies trying to convince everyone that cigarettes are good to them.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 20 points 3 hours ago

"considering young people's perspectives or evidence" LOL eat shit fuckerberg

last i heard, the evidence showed that fb and other social medias overrun with "influencers" provide zero benefit, but instead cause self-image problems and depression at best, completely unaddressed cyberbullying and suicide at worst.

fuck the lot of social medias. it's bad enough that grown ass adults are so addicted to it

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 15 points 4 hours ago

Meta concerned with people when they can't abuse them.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

They can still go to school and watch tv, thats all the social and media they need respectively

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

What about the kids who come to terms with their gender or sexuality through social media?

What about the kids who use social media to connect with other people who share their experiences of being visible minorities?

What about the kids who get their sex education from social media because their parents pulled them out of sex ed classes at school and you sure as shit don't get that stuff on the tv?

What about the kids who never understood that what their uncle is doing to them is actually sexual abuse until they were able to talk about it through the pseudo-anonymity of social media? The kids who learned survival strategies through social media? The kids who only managed not to kill themselves because of the friends they made online?

Do any of them matter?

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 44 minutes ago

Of course those things matter. What is important is that minus the social media, we as a society need to build healthy and affirming alternatives to compensate for this gap. The hard part is figuring out what forms those should take and how to keep them from having similar pitfalls.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago

There are plenty of places on the internet at large where those resources exist outside of social media. Restricting minors from posting (but not reading) might also be an effective alternative to a total ban. Though in either case there is little you can do to stop them from just lying during sign up

[–] Devorlon@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

This is what worries me about social media bans for kids, there are no local resources as readily available and anonymous as the internet for dealing with the issues you mentioned, and I've not seen any talk about increasing funding for those sorts of services.

I'm not sure if the good social media provides to these kids outweighs the bad that it's causing, but at the least I want to see alternatives being discussed.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 hour ago

What about the kids who come to terms with their gender or sexuality through social media?

Seriously? This is legit a concern of yours?! Yall crazy.