Summary
Australia has passed a groundbreaking ban on social media use for children under 16, the strictest of its kind globally.
Platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Reddit have one year to implement the age limit, with fines up to AU$50M for non-compliance.
Supporters cite mental health concerns, while critics argue the ban risks isolation for marginalized youth, lacks proper research, and excludes harmful platforms like 4chan.
Privacy concerns surround proposed age-verification methods. Opponents, including parents, scholars, and tech companies, argue the legislation is rushed and poorly designed, potentially exacerbating existing issues.
But that’s exactly the problem, right?
Social media platforms, forums and other online social spaces wax and wane on popularity. New ones are turning up all the time. This won’t prevent kids from socializing online, it’ll just force them to do it in the least safe places. Even if you try to regulate every online social space, it’ll just turn into a game of whack a mole.
So we should legalize stabbings because otherwise people will turn to “even worse” forms of violence? Surely there must be a simpler and less moronic approach to legislation.
Should we legalize or decriminalize most drugs, create safe injection sites, and treat addiction as a medical rather than a criminal issue?
Yes. That’s exactly what the experts recommend.
And that is no more an argument for my point than your comparison is an argument against it.
Analogies are not load bearing. They illustrate an argument, they don’t make it.
You haven’t provided an argument. Only an analogy, which on its own is worthless.
And, for the record, when you do figure out what your argument is, you’ll have to share it with someone else, because if you’re firing right off with “moronic” then there’s clearly nothing fruitful to be gained from me actually discussing this with you in good faith.