Would you upload your government ID just to access the web? Would you be content knowing that a leak at a social media company could lead to your identity being stolen just because your government wants to keep under 16s off of mainstream social media. Would you be happy with your child using 4chan because they are banned from using safer social media websites? I personally know several people who would not be around today if online safe spaces didn’t exist to give them an escape from bullying, queerphobia or domestic violence. I can understand why someone might agree with the sentiment “people under 16 shouldn’t be on social media”, but I cannot understand why someone would be okay with the specifics of this legislation. People are going to have their lives ruined because of this new law and it doesn’t even succeed in what it sets out to do (nominally) in the first place. The true reason for this bill is not to “protect children from radicalisation”, but to drive viewer/readership of Murdoch media, if it were about protecting children from radicalisation and bullying, why are the worst of these social media sites not included in the ban?
Would you upload your government ID just to access the web? Would you be content knowing that a leak at a social media company could lead to your identity being stolen just because your government wants to keep under 16s off of mainstream social media. Would you be happy with your child using 4chan because they are banned from using safer social media websites? I personally know several people who would not be around today if online safe spaces didn’t exist to give them an escape from bullying, queerphobia or domestic violence. I can understand why someone might agree with the sentiment “people under 16 shouldn’t be on social media”, but I cannot understand why someone would be okay with the specifics of this legislation. People are going to have their lives ruined because of this new law and it doesn’t even succeed in what it sets out to do (nominally) in the first place. The true reason for this bill is not to “protect children from radicalisation”, but to drive viewer/readership of Murdoch media, if it were about protecting children from radicalisation and bullying, why are the worst of these social media sites not included in the ban?