Are you honestly suggesting that imposing a hard requirement for your children to exclude themselves from the platforms on which their peers are engaging with each other is good parenting?

You personally may not want this ban, but it has overwhelming support from parents generally. Its not even a divisive issue, it has bipartisan support. Thats not to say you cant criticise it, merely that "we" really did ask for this.

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

imposing a hard requirement…

So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to? Is that what you’re seriously suggesting? Does your whole point ride around peer ridicule, based on who applies the ban, or the ban itself?

Yeah I am honestly suggesting, because parents are better at that, given they know their own children better than most and the situation they’re in. And that it’s their role here, not the federal governments.

it has bipartisan support

So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does. It’s a contributor why we’re called ‘the lucky country’.

This policy is lucky country policy.

’we’ really asked for this

No we didn’t. We asked for gambling ads to be removed and a solution to the housing crisis.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So it’s a bad idea when parents do it, but a good idea for the government to?

I can't believe I need to spell this out but here goes.

If kids are generally interacting with each other on social media, then excluding your own child from that will make them a pariah. You know, like the kid that can't go on the school camp because reasons.

With the recent ban, kids are no longer "generally interacting" with each other on social media. It doesn't matter that some will inevitably circumvent the ban. This gives parents the opportunity to enforce boundaries.

it’s their role here, not the federal governments.

Nonsense. Federal government's impose age restrictions on all sorts of things for a variety of reasons. There are legislated ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving, et cetera.

So what? Most of the shittier stuff we pass does.

If something has bipartisan support then more or less by definition, you can't argue that "we" didn't ask for it, because everyone's representatives are asking for it.

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If kids…

By my experience, that didn’t happen. To them or most of their friends. Yes, I know it didn’t, the last one just left school and they were honest with us about it.

ages of consent, alcohol consumption, driving

Are vastly different from engaging in social networks. That’s why good parents object to this.

I’ll ask again; do you have any experience raising children. For that matter, drinking or driving?

if something has bipartisan support

It doesn’t mean it’s in our interest and often means it’s lucky country politics.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I do have kids approaching this age, but I dont see how thats relevant.

Even as a childless bachelor, any idiot can conclude that children spending less time on social media is good for society.

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It’s relevant because a lot of us who have raised children understand where the government has gone wrong with this.

That doesn’t mean we all agree, some parents who’ve been through this agree with the law, as you said.

The peer pressure, if it happens, will continue; that’s something I’ll let you know now before yours get to that age. In fact it’ll be stronger because this time they’re really being a rebel; it’s not just mum and dad.

Any idiot concluding that keeping children off social networks is a good thing, is not the same as a government introducing flawed legislation to do that, legislation which will be ineffective. As for what other problems arise from this, we have to wait and see.

Edit: they’re for you’re, third paragraph.

Edit 2: last paragraph for clarity