Meta accuses Australian government of failing to consider young people’s voices with world-first social media ban
Meta accuses Australian government of failing to consider young people’s voices with world-first social media ban
One independent MP calls bill – which passed on Thursday – a ‘1970 solution for a 2024 problem’
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Pretending to be a doctor is illegal.
Doesn't stop karen from pushing essential oils and crystal healing.
Did she do her own research at least?
Well, she didn't publish so who knows?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even this tiny social media network has plenty of misinformation and bullshit
That shout be repeated often
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.
Wouldn't that make many (most?) news sites social media since they let you comment on articles? (IMDB dodged a bullet?)
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.
Ah, I see what you're saying. That might be a way of looking at it.
yt was social-media, before they ripped-out massive quantities of comments, for things like, you know,
- fact checking
- linking to Wikipedia
- not pushing the disinformation they find so profitable
- being objective
- calling-out disinformation-pushers, establishment or otherwise
Now that they've got an autodelete on any comment linking to Wikipedia, the're not really "social media" anymore, now they're "social" media, if you see the difference..
( propaganda-for-profit, & controlled, deeply. )
_ /\ _