The Internet is a communication system so any interference with it or its platforms engages the freedom of expression. I understand the issues but freedom in my view is more important than State interference.
Once we start down the path of govt selecting sites to ban for <16's you'll develop a small industry of censors deciding what next... YouTube, game sites, etc, etc. It'll become a game of "cat and mouse". Foolishly ignorant of the nature of "the internet" IMO.
Not talking about Human Rights Bob but the freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act. Age related restrictions have their place but not in the area of free speech. Your examples are proper and have been with us for a while. But this social media proposal is not comparable.
Thanks for your contribution. All points of view are encouraged- even this from < 16s.
The issue isn’t free expression because, for example, the Florida bill only bans scrolling content & videos, but not communication person-to-person.
This is about protecting young people from offensive, harmful and adult content which is being targeted at minors and which parents can’t always vet all the time.
Facebook whistleblowers have admitted that.
It’s time we put the protection and mental wellbeing of children first. Doing nothing is not an option.
Parents need the endorsement and support of the law and the community on this issue. It’s long overdue.
That’s fine Bob.
The Internet is a communication system so any interference with it or its platforms engages the freedom of expression. I understand the issues but freedom in my view is more important than State interference.
True but as the censors report makes clear they live their lives via social media.
She kept missing the point entirely because she really really wants to be seen as "protecting our children".
This is another step in controlling people. Perhaps well intentioned, but the thin edge of a very large wedge.
Once we start down the path of govt selecting sites to ban for <16's you'll develop a small industry of censors deciding what next... YouTube, game sites, etc, etc. It'll become a game of "cat and mouse". Foolishly ignorant of the nature of "the internet" IMO.
Do you also oppose the voting age?
And the alcohol purchase age?
And the driver licence age restriction?
Isn’t that a breach of their human rights also?
Not talking about Human Rights Bob but the freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act. Age related restrictions have their place but not in the area of free speech. Your examples are proper and have been with us for a while. But this social media proposal is not comparable.
Thanks for your contribution. All points of view are encouraged- even this from < 16s.
Thanks David.
The issue isn’t free expression because, for example, the Florida bill only bans scrolling content & videos, but not communication person-to-person.
This is about protecting young people from offensive, harmful and adult content which is being targeted at minors and which parents can’t always vet all the time.
Facebook whistleblowers have admitted that.
It’s time we put the protection and mental wellbeing of children first. Doing nothing is not an option.
Parents need the endorsement and support of the law and the community on this issue. It’s long overdue.
In my opinion 🙏🏻
Your premise “They [Under 16s] would be basically offline as far as that means of communication is concerned” is not correct.
Modes of communication are still available.
Absolutely - including social media platforms that may not be specified in the Regulations.