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.
It’s not just about resources, it’s about connections. A lot of people don’t even know where to start looking into something. Asking a question is sometimes the most effective way.
And sometimes it’s not even about questions. Sometimes it’s about living in a small town full of conservative Christians where, as far as you know, you are the only gay kid. And you don’t dare breath a word of that to anyone around you. But online you can be your authentic self, or at least a version of it. You can connect with other people like you, and you can commiserate about what you’re struggling with, and you can maybe not feel so fucking alone.
I’m not sure you really understand just how damaging that kind of isolation is. Not being able to express yourself honestly to anyone is unbelievably destructive to your mental health. It leaves scars that last a lifetime - and in many cases, it cuts that lifetime very, very short.
A social media ban, for a lot of kids, basically locks them into solitary confinement. They live around people who may never love and accept the person they really are. They need some place where they can feel some sliver of human connection. Where they can feel loved and understood. It is, genuinely, very often the difference between life and death.
This is true, but the robo-parasites we call “platforms” are engineered to prey-on, not protect or safeguard, their prey.
Always keep that in mind.
The 1st defense a moneyarchist corporation/“person” states, is always ( as somebody pointed-out ) “we didn’t violate the law”, aka “we didn’t commit a legal crime”,
which doesn’t mean “we’re innocent”.
Also remember that until convicted of crime, they’re “innocent”, in Common Law usage, ttbomk…
What’s required isn’t robo-parasites which exist to “monetize” the consumption of human-life, through “interaction-addiction”,
but rather something not-for-profit, which puts their-LivingWorth 1st, & hard-blocks parasitism/predators, etc…
_ /\ _
I’ve said elsewhere that I fully agree that our current version of social media is extremely damaging. We need to make this better, but a ban ultimately does more harm than good. Prohibition wasn’t a good solution to alcohol abuse, and this isn’t a good solution to the harms that happen online.