I don't know how to say it... I'm continually feeling disappointed and betrayed by the party to which I previously gave my voluntary service..
The solution to these problems should not lie with more and more centralised control. The mobile telephone ban in schools being a good example. The result of this is that schools as institutions are weakened and reduced in every one's eyes. The minister gets a golden tick; but the problem isn't really resolved.
We need the independent institutions in society to be strengthened, not degraded. Banning things by more and more centralised control doesn't help to build up the society, it degrades our ability to find meaningful interactions and connections, by making everyone more atomized and less trustful of others.
If social media use by young people is the problem, then it requires social solutions, not political solutions. The schools should become more focused on creating opportunities for meaningful interactions, activities, clubs, sports - they need to become more organised at this, they need to create opportunities that are more interesting for the young people, more interesting and interactive than chatting via mobile. The only way to resolve this problem is to create alternatives that are more interesting. The time for complete laissez faire is gone, we need to be innovative to create experiences that are more attractive for the youth of today.
And this can apply equally to those that have a tendency to indulge in bullying behaviour via social media - they only do it because of their insecurities, because they don't know how to form genuine meaningful human interactions.....
Each person needs to find their own place in life, we have to do that from the grass roots up - not via centralised control. And for young people, they're still learning, we have to show them how to keep a good perspective on things. Therefore the colleges need to make more effort in this area.... But central government standing over the top of the colleges doesn't improve their status and ability to educate...
Agree with your sentiment, but I was happy with the cellphone ban in schools. Imnsho, it is ok to set standards for behaviour in school (uniform, attendance, no smoking, no phones),but there is a line (shades of grey to be honest) that is crossed when telling kids what they can or can't do outside school.
my point was that, by the principle of subsidiarity, schools should have the authority to set their own standards, and without that they can't really fulfil their intended mission to support the parents/in cooperation with the parents, to hopefully produce well-rounded individuals who know how to interact with others and how to develop their own personalities.
I'm going to really stick my neck out here. I was, for a long time, a psychotherapist in private practice and a perennial problem for many parents was struggling with how to set boundaries for their teenagers and survive the consequent toxic fallout. Some gave up the struggle and gave in to their offspring's demands and others managed to hold the line. The former mostly could not tolerate the emotional discomfort of not being "friends" with their teenagers, in spite of an intellectual understanding that their job was to be a parent first and with a bit of luck, a friend second. You can't be both, except very rarely, and this is what's missing in a lot of the discussion. I'm about to head for my bomb shelter now.
There are high passions on this topic but don't head for the bomb shelter.
This is a matter that will be the subject of posts in the future dealing as it does with law, technology, freedom of expression, State interference and so on.
Yeeha! Somebody finally says you can't be friends with your teenagers. My four kids HATED me when they were teenagers. Told me every day - I HATE YOU, when I told them they had to be home by 10pm, blah blah blah. When they said 'everyone else has blah blah blah' as if that means they can have one too. Believe it or not, they thank me for being a horrible mother now. They all have great jobs, own their own houses, are good with money, despite their father going bankrupt, and their having to work every day after school. Life is tough, suck it up.
We were talking with our 39 yr old son this morning on this topic. He would not accept a "do this or else approach". There always had to be a reason. And "because I say so" didn't cut it. Is it any wonder that he morphed into a lawyer.
The other thing is that he discussed at some length how ineffective this social media ban is going to be and explained a couple of methods whereby kids could circumvent it.
Very true, tough love is actually loving toughly, parenting comes first. Many modern parents are so used to having the bumps taken out of life that they are afraid to let their kids get hurt in any way, even mildly.
I get where you’re coming from. I’m also opposed to state overreach and government oversight of what we all do and say. I use protonmail, VPNs, etc., all the tin foil hat stuff. I think government control of media and state overreach is a gross injustice and we need to fight it. But prescribing that motive to this bill is an inexact interpretation of what this bill, and the broader idea that we’ve seen in Australia, is about.
Limiting or banning social media for youth isn’t primarily about restricting the ideas they’re exposed to, who they can speak to, what they can say. It’s about restricting their access to a narcotic which is having definite, expansive, and uncontrolled impact on their psyche, brain function, education, and even drive to succeed. These social platforms aren’t sources of information, they’re dopamine-triggering slot machines that are turning our youth into brainless addicts. They’re products that are intentionally designed by legions of very smart people to be impossible to put down.
I’m young myself. I finished school 5 years ago. I was there for the advent of social media and its expansion into an all-encompassing super structure. Many of my friends and the people I grew up with spend, without exaggerating, 4 - 6 hours on social media every day. In school, many kids didn’t play with each other at lunchtime and would instead sit on their phones, occasionally sharing memes with their friends and then going back to sitting in silence. Many of the people I knew fell behind in school, didn’t pursue extra-curricular activities, and didn’t exercise any degree of critical thinking. This is anecdotal, but it’s reflected in many studies. Young people have fewer friends, are having less sex, and are more lonely. While social media isn’t the only factor, with helicopter parenting, financial strain, and other factors influencing this, social media is undoubtedly the primary factor.
It is much more difficult to moderate the use of the social media by creating time restrictions than it is to ban it. It’s impossible to force these companies, many of which have larger valuations than the size of our GDP, to change the way their sites are run to make them less addictive. It’s easier to ban it.
Again, I totally get where you’re coming from. But I hope you can appreciate the other side to this, and see the benefits of banning social media for youth.
Parents can’t hold their children to account. Parents themselves are addicted to social media, but it’s not politically palatable to say ‘your children are addicted to social media and stupider for it, and by the way so are you’.
We accept a modicum of parental control when it comes to things like alcohol by allowing parents to let their children drink after they cross a certain threshold, even when the kids aren’t old enough to buy it themselves. But that won’t work for something like social media where the parents themselves are addicted.
Social media isn’t going to be banned. It would still be available for people above 16, like cigarettes and alcohol are for people above 18. An age where they can hopefully make a mature decision and before their brain development is affected by addiction. If people understand that it’s terrible they can make better decisions. I agree that people should have and do have personal agency but I strongly believe that the ability to exercise that agency is corrupted and rotted by any addictive substance. That’s where the government needs to help. We expect parents to make sure their child avoids cigarettes, but we also make sure the dairy can’t sell them cigarettes.
Technology does change social behaviour, but I think it’s immediately and very apparently clear that the changes it has made are overwhelming negative. A few educational YouTube videos doesn’t outweigh that.
I appreciate your point of view as well. While I think we desperately need restrictions on social media it’s important that we don’t sacrifice privacy or freedom of expression. But we’re sacrificing a lot more if we let social media roam free.
Regrettably I can’t agree. This is an example of Nanny State. Parents MUST take responsibility rather than delegate this aspect of their job to the State.
I enjoy reading your blog, and your choice of topics over the past wee while is prescient given the legislative turn of events but I think the state does need to step in as parents have not stepped up. I agree with JS - social media for children is largely a brain rotting narcotic. Like pornography. It's all very well to say "parental responsibility" but the reality is both parents are working and they are likely as addicted as the children. If you get a chance, go for a walk past a playground on a saturday morning at least half the parents will be on their phones instead of supervising their children.
Also there's a a reason National is pushing the bill. It's defintely a vote getter, good parents know this is a serious problem. I view the ban as having moral force and frames the use of social media by minors in a different light.
As far as a differing point of view is concerned whyen I ntaught at Law School I said at the first lecture that there was no party line.
That applies here as well.
I have no problem with disagreement or with another view. I have often changed my own position having heard argument.
I am afraid we get into murky waters when the law and morality come together. Patrick Devlin's "Morality of Law" is still thye leading piece on that subject
Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I feel like if the policy is a vote getter, it will be from a lot of parents who are collectively saying enough is enough with the social media. To be fair all parents are concerned with the influences their offspring face, most of my generation smoked at some point and listened to ungodly music, but it does seem to be all pervasive this time. Thanks again for all your work, see you in in a different comment section.
I imagine the publication of the bill won't be far off. There's a page on Parliament website for the Member's bill proposal already (https://bills.parliament.nz/v/1/a407c500-5d74-417a-4ebb-08dd8c12305f). However, I would note that there will be no regulatory impact statements: those are only created by Ministries for government bills.
One possible reason this might be a member's bill is that ACT opposes, so National might instead be looking for Labour to support it.
I'm wondering if amendment to existing legislation might be a pathway. I think a discussion and understanding of the issues and possible solutions needs to come first, at the moment, the cart is before the horse.
We already have existing age restrictions for sexual relations consent, driving a motor vehicle, purchase of tobacco products, purchase and consumption of alcohol and voting.
We have two sets of legislation : The Care of Children Act (2004) and The Harmful Digital Communications Act (2015) that we could amend to have an age limit for smartphones and social media - something parents can point to. Perhaps starting with a basic 'dumb' phone is another option?
I'd rather see parents empowered to act rather than more Govt nanny state overreach.
Jonathon Haidt's book 'The Anxious Generation' makes for interesting reading and a foundation of the issues and causes.
Essentially Millennials were the last generation to have a 'normal' childhood, one shaped by real world experiences and similar to their parents or earlier forebears in that respect.
The start of all this was in 2007 with Facebook and then iPhone released a smartphone with a forward facing camera in 2011 - it's well worth folks time to read his book and understand the issues and some possible solutions.
We record births in NZ, so could maintain some record of additions, including immigrant's children in their visa application. Then as people 'come of age' they drop off the restriction for social media and smartphones.
As minimal Govt involvement as possible, but as much empowerment and encouragement of parents to parent as possible.
Your thoughtful comment requires detailed consideration.
Let me start by saying that the Bill which I am examining is so deficient that amendment would not cure it and I think tacking the proposals in some form or another on to existing legislation would be overly complex.
I don't see the HDCA as the place for this. It deals with remedial steps that can be taken for harmful content once the communication is received.
Care of Children replaced the old Guardianship Act.
As to the normal childhood to which you refer. You are reflecting on the way things used to be before technology started to alter behaviours. Marshall McLuhan said "we shape our tools and thereafter out tools shape us". Technology alters behaviours and in time alters values. The values of a "normal" childhood no longer apply to todays kids who live their lives in a different communications paradigm. We have to accept that things as we knew them no longer apply and trying to cement them in place in a new and paradigmatically environment is an exercise in futility that can only bring the law into disrepute.
I am familiar with Haidt but do not share his pessimism. Furthermore he does not understand the nature of paradigmatic change and as McLuhan suggested elsewhere moves into the future looking through the rearview mirror. We may not like what we see in the future but it is not our future. We belong to a past that cannot be recovered.
Thanks for the remarks.
Obviously there is going to be a debate about this.
My theories of paradigmatic change are in my book "Collisions in the Digital Paradigm - Law and Rulemaking in the Internet Age"
I always shudder when I hear the words, 'As a mother...' as if that justifies introducing legislation which intrudes into the family. The flipside of that is 'As a father...' justifying legislation from a convicted paedophile who makes it into Parliament then introduces a Bill legalising underage sex.
That seems to be the way. Whether it is an offshoot of identity politics or something else I know not. I think it may be a way of establishing expertise or qualifications. I though Ms Wedd overegged the pudding frankly.
The problem with a stronger 'hands off approach' (ie less Government, which libertarian Boris agrees with in general), is who picks up the pieces when it all goes poo shaped. I would for example maybe be ok with liberalising drug laws, but ONLY if the costs associated with the ensuing disaster were met by the guilty idiots using them. Turn up at ED OD'd? Expect a hefty bill. But we never practice tough love, instead we practice some kind of reverse-Darwinism by forever saving retards from themselves.
With social media, I agree that imposed age restrictions will easily be circumvented, so a waste of time. Kids should not be on Social Media until they are about 16, but the age is a blunt line and depends on the individual. More important is that parents are teaching their kids resilience, self-dependence and that there are more important things in life than the BS being peddled by influencers and their pathetic ilk.
I guess in the future half-decent parents who guide their offspring well should produce more resilient kids who will secure better jobs and be wealthier etc. But we know that won't work cos communist overlords will just rob the 'rich' to sustain the stupid. And dollars to donuts, there will be claims that Maori are more affected by social media harm (because of social media colonisation?) and thus be entitled to more funding...
I am suspicious of all supposed legislative solutions to apparent social problems. The prime example is the Misuse of Drugs Act. Does its blanket prohibitions stop narcotic consumption? No it does not. All it does is distort the market to generate super-profits for the completely unscrupulous. Notwithstanding my reservations about lawyers, I prefer solutions from pre-existing common law principles. I am sure Meta (Facebook, Instagram) would modify its behaviour if it was regarded as what it is, a tortfeasor.
I don't know how to say it... I'm continually feeling disappointed and betrayed by the party to which I previously gave my voluntary service..
The solution to these problems should not lie with more and more centralised control. The mobile telephone ban in schools being a good example. The result of this is that schools as institutions are weakened and reduced in every one's eyes. The minister gets a golden tick; but the problem isn't really resolved.
We need the independent institutions in society to be strengthened, not degraded. Banning things by more and more centralised control doesn't help to build up the society, it degrades our ability to find meaningful interactions and connections, by making everyone more atomized and less trustful of others.
If social media use by young people is the problem, then it requires social solutions, not political solutions. The schools should become more focused on creating opportunities for meaningful interactions, activities, clubs, sports - they need to become more organised at this, they need to create opportunities that are more interesting for the young people, more interesting and interactive than chatting via mobile. The only way to resolve this problem is to create alternatives that are more interesting. The time for complete laissez faire is gone, we need to be innovative to create experiences that are more attractive for the youth of today.
And this can apply equally to those that have a tendency to indulge in bullying behaviour via social media - they only do it because of their insecurities, because they don't know how to form genuine meaningful human interactions.....
Each person needs to find their own place in life, we have to do that from the grass roots up - not via centralised control. And for young people, they're still learning, we have to show them how to keep a good perspective on things. Therefore the colleges need to make more effort in this area.... But central government standing over the top of the colleges doesn't improve their status and ability to educate...
Agree with your sentiment, but I was happy with the cellphone ban in schools. Imnsho, it is ok to set standards for behaviour in school (uniform, attendance, no smoking, no phones),but there is a line (shades of grey to be honest) that is crossed when telling kids what they can or can't do outside school.
my point was that, by the principle of subsidiarity, schools should have the authority to set their own standards, and without that they can't really fulfil their intended mission to support the parents/in cooperation with the parents, to hopefully produce well-rounded individuals who know how to interact with others and how to develop their own personalities.
I'm going to really stick my neck out here. I was, for a long time, a psychotherapist in private practice and a perennial problem for many parents was struggling with how to set boundaries for their teenagers and survive the consequent toxic fallout. Some gave up the struggle and gave in to their offspring's demands and others managed to hold the line. The former mostly could not tolerate the emotional discomfort of not being "friends" with their teenagers, in spite of an intellectual understanding that their job was to be a parent first and with a bit of luck, a friend second. You can't be both, except very rarely, and this is what's missing in a lot of the discussion. I'm about to head for my bomb shelter now.
Thanks Aroha and thanks for your insights.
There are high passions on this topic but don't head for the bomb shelter.
This is a matter that will be the subject of posts in the future dealing as it does with law, technology, freedom of expression, State interference and so on.
It will be an interesting ride.
Yeeha! Somebody finally says you can't be friends with your teenagers. My four kids HATED me when they were teenagers. Told me every day - I HATE YOU, when I told them they had to be home by 10pm, blah blah blah. When they said 'everyone else has blah blah blah' as if that means they can have one too. Believe it or not, they thank me for being a horrible mother now. They all have great jobs, own their own houses, are good with money, despite their father going bankrupt, and their having to work every day after school. Life is tough, suck it up.
Hi Deborah
We were talking with our 39 yr old son this morning on this topic. He would not accept a "do this or else approach". There always had to be a reason. And "because I say so" didn't cut it. Is it any wonder that he morphed into a lawyer.
The other thing is that he discussed at some length how ineffective this social media ban is going to be and explained a couple of methods whereby kids could circumvent it.
Yes by giving them boundaries we proved we loved them. Their friends who had total freedom actually envied our kids.
It’s a funny world.
Very true, tough love is actually loving toughly, parenting comes first. Many modern parents are so used to having the bumps taken out of life that they are afraid to let their kids get hurt in any way, even mildly.
Agreed
I get where you’re coming from. I’m also opposed to state overreach and government oversight of what we all do and say. I use protonmail, VPNs, etc., all the tin foil hat stuff. I think government control of media and state overreach is a gross injustice and we need to fight it. But prescribing that motive to this bill is an inexact interpretation of what this bill, and the broader idea that we’ve seen in Australia, is about.
Limiting or banning social media for youth isn’t primarily about restricting the ideas they’re exposed to, who they can speak to, what they can say. It’s about restricting their access to a narcotic which is having definite, expansive, and uncontrolled impact on their psyche, brain function, education, and even drive to succeed. These social platforms aren’t sources of information, they’re dopamine-triggering slot machines that are turning our youth into brainless addicts. They’re products that are intentionally designed by legions of very smart people to be impossible to put down.
I’m young myself. I finished school 5 years ago. I was there for the advent of social media and its expansion into an all-encompassing super structure. Many of my friends and the people I grew up with spend, without exaggerating, 4 - 6 hours on social media every day. In school, many kids didn’t play with each other at lunchtime and would instead sit on their phones, occasionally sharing memes with their friends and then going back to sitting in silence. Many of the people I knew fell behind in school, didn’t pursue extra-curricular activities, and didn’t exercise any degree of critical thinking. This is anecdotal, but it’s reflected in many studies. Young people have fewer friends, are having less sex, and are more lonely. While social media isn’t the only factor, with helicopter parenting, financial strain, and other factors influencing this, social media is undoubtedly the primary factor.
It is much more difficult to moderate the use of the social media by creating time restrictions than it is to ban it. It’s impossible to force these companies, many of which have larger valuations than the size of our GDP, to change the way their sites are run to make them less addictive. It’s easier to ban it.
Again, I totally get where you’re coming from. But I hope you can appreciate the other side to this, and see the benefits of banning social media for youth.
Thanks for your input
It is not the business of the State to involve itself to this level. It is a matter of parental responsibility.
Yes there is toxic stuff out there but there is more good stuff as well.
And you have to realise that technology hgas an impact upon behaviour - as McLuhan ssays "we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us"
Socialisation changes as a result of technology. Much social lifew takes place online - as you well know.
Restricting <16 access is not an answer. There are ways and means of circumventing those restrictions.
Banning stuff just doesn't work. Think Prohibition in the US in the 1920's.
And it may be that time limits may be difficult to enforce - but because it is difficult does not mean that it should not be done.
And once they bring in age verificvation - what then - increased State surveillance!
Thanks again for your insights.
Parents can’t hold their children to account. Parents themselves are addicted to social media, but it’s not politically palatable to say ‘your children are addicted to social media and stupider for it, and by the way so are you’.
We accept a modicum of parental control when it comes to things like alcohol by allowing parents to let their children drink after they cross a certain threshold, even when the kids aren’t old enough to buy it themselves. But that won’t work for something like social media where the parents themselves are addicted.
Social media isn’t going to be banned. It would still be available for people above 16, like cigarettes and alcohol are for people above 18. An age where they can hopefully make a mature decision and before their brain development is affected by addiction. If people understand that it’s terrible they can make better decisions. I agree that people should have and do have personal agency but I strongly believe that the ability to exercise that agency is corrupted and rotted by any addictive substance. That’s where the government needs to help. We expect parents to make sure their child avoids cigarettes, but we also make sure the dairy can’t sell them cigarettes.
Technology does change social behaviour, but I think it’s immediately and very apparently clear that the changes it has made are overwhelming negative. A few educational YouTube videos doesn’t outweigh that.
I appreciate your point of view as well. While I think we desperately need restrictions on social media it’s important that we don’t sacrifice privacy or freedom of expression. But we’re sacrificing a lot more if we let social media roam free.
Regrettably I can’t agree. This is an example of Nanny State. Parents MUST take responsibility rather than delegate this aspect of their job to the State.
I enjoy reading your blog, and your choice of topics over the past wee while is prescient given the legislative turn of events but I think the state does need to step in as parents have not stepped up. I agree with JS - social media for children is largely a brain rotting narcotic. Like pornography. It's all very well to say "parental responsibility" but the reality is both parents are working and they are likely as addicted as the children. If you get a chance, go for a walk past a playground on a saturday morning at least half the parents will be on their phones instead of supervising their children.
Thanks for your comment and I am glad you enjoy my writing.
I appreciate your point of view.
When I was teaching at University I told my class at the outset "there is no Party line" and that holds true here.
We can debate and we can disagree and that is healthy.
It is a pity that the State sees it as necessary to step in.
My cynicism leads me to the point that I think they see this as a vote getter.
Also there's a a reason National is pushing the bill. It's defintely a vote getter, good parents know this is a serious problem. I view the ban as having moral force and frames the use of social media by minors in a different light.
I agree it is a vote getter.
As far as a differing point of view is concerned whyen I ntaught at Law School I said at the first lecture that there was no party line.
That applies here as well.
I have no problem with disagreement or with another view. I have often changed my own position having heard argument.
I am afraid we get into murky waters when the law and morality come together. Patrick Devlin's "Morality of Law" is still thye leading piece on that subject
Having said that I am glad you have expressed your position.
That is whjat a comments section is all about.
Thanks for your contribution and feel free to comment further as this issue progresses
Will be interesting to see how it plays out. I feel like if the policy is a vote getter, it will be from a lot of parents who are collectively saying enough is enough with the social media. To be fair all parents are concerned with the influences their offspring face, most of my generation smoked at some point and listened to ungodly music, but it does seem to be all pervasive this time. Thanks again for all your work, see you in in a different comment section.
Thanks Laurie
A full analysis of the Bill will be available tomorrow 9 May as from 7:00 am
I imagine the publication of the bill won't be far off. There's a page on Parliament website for the Member's bill proposal already (https://bills.parliament.nz/v/1/a407c500-5d74-417a-4ebb-08dd8c12305f). However, I would note that there will be no regulatory impact statements: those are only created by Ministries for government bills.
One possible reason this might be a member's bill is that ACT opposes, so National might instead be looking for Labour to support it.
Thanks Graeme
I mimagine Labour will be all over this one. It was they who proposed Safer Online Services after all.
I'm wondering if amendment to existing legislation might be a pathway. I think a discussion and understanding of the issues and possible solutions needs to come first, at the moment, the cart is before the horse.
We already have existing age restrictions for sexual relations consent, driving a motor vehicle, purchase of tobacco products, purchase and consumption of alcohol and voting.
We have two sets of legislation : The Care of Children Act (2004) and The Harmful Digital Communications Act (2015) that we could amend to have an age limit for smartphones and social media - something parents can point to. Perhaps starting with a basic 'dumb' phone is another option?
I'd rather see parents empowered to act rather than more Govt nanny state overreach.
Jonathon Haidt's book 'The Anxious Generation' makes for interesting reading and a foundation of the issues and causes.
Essentially Millennials were the last generation to have a 'normal' childhood, one shaped by real world experiences and similar to their parents or earlier forebears in that respect.
The start of all this was in 2007 with Facebook and then iPhone released a smartphone with a forward facing camera in 2011 - it's well worth folks time to read his book and understand the issues and some possible solutions.
We record births in NZ, so could maintain some record of additions, including immigrant's children in their visa application. Then as people 'come of age' they drop off the restriction for social media and smartphones.
As minimal Govt involvement as possible, but as much empowerment and encouragement of parents to parent as possible.
Ken
Your thoughtful comment requires detailed consideration.
Let me start by saying that the Bill which I am examining is so deficient that amendment would not cure it and I think tacking the proposals in some form or another on to existing legislation would be overly complex.
I don't see the HDCA as the place for this. It deals with remedial steps that can be taken for harmful content once the communication is received.
Care of Children replaced the old Guardianship Act.
As to the normal childhood to which you refer. You are reflecting on the way things used to be before technology started to alter behaviours. Marshall McLuhan said "we shape our tools and thereafter out tools shape us". Technology alters behaviours and in time alters values. The values of a "normal" childhood no longer apply to todays kids who live their lives in a different communications paradigm. We have to accept that things as we knew them no longer apply and trying to cement them in place in a new and paradigmatically environment is an exercise in futility that can only bring the law into disrepute.
I am familiar with Haidt but do not share his pessimism. Furthermore he does not understand the nature of paradigmatic change and as McLuhan suggested elsewhere moves into the future looking through the rearview mirror. We may not like what we see in the future but it is not our future. We belong to a past that cannot be recovered.
Thanks for the remarks.
Obviously there is going to be a debate about this.
My theories of paradigmatic change are in my book "Collisions in the Digital Paradigm - Law and Rulemaking in the Internet Age"
I always shudder when I hear the words, 'As a mother...' as if that justifies introducing legislation which intrudes into the family. The flipside of that is 'As a father...' justifying legislation from a convicted paedophile who makes it into Parliament then introduces a Bill legalising underage sex.
That seems to be the way. Whether it is an offshoot of identity politics or something else I know not. I think it may be a way of establishing expertise or qualifications. I though Ms Wedd overegged the pudding frankly.
BTW is the proof reading improving :-)
Yes! Markedly. 10/10
The problem with a stronger 'hands off approach' (ie less Government, which libertarian Boris agrees with in general), is who picks up the pieces when it all goes poo shaped. I would for example maybe be ok with liberalising drug laws, but ONLY if the costs associated with the ensuing disaster were met by the guilty idiots using them. Turn up at ED OD'd? Expect a hefty bill. But we never practice tough love, instead we practice some kind of reverse-Darwinism by forever saving retards from themselves.
With social media, I agree that imposed age restrictions will easily be circumvented, so a waste of time. Kids should not be on Social Media until they are about 16, but the age is a blunt line and depends on the individual. More important is that parents are teaching their kids resilience, self-dependence and that there are more important things in life than the BS being peddled by influencers and their pathetic ilk.
I guess in the future half-decent parents who guide their offspring well should produce more resilient kids who will secure better jobs and be wealthier etc. But we know that won't work cos communist overlords will just rob the 'rich' to sustain the stupid. And dollars to donuts, there will be claims that Maori are more affected by social media harm (because of social media colonisation?) and thus be entitled to more funding...
Thanks Boris
I agree with the sentiments you have expressed.
This story has only just begun and it will be an interesting ride.
Thanks again.
I am suspicious of all supposed legislative solutions to apparent social problems. The prime example is the Misuse of Drugs Act. Does its blanket prohibitions stop narcotic consumption? No it does not. All it does is distort the market to generate super-profits for the completely unscrupulous. Notwithstanding my reservations about lawyers, I prefer solutions from pre-existing common law principles. I am sure Meta (Facebook, Instagram) would modify its behaviour if it was regarded as what it is, a tortfeasor.