Australian Ban Fails: Critics Blast Effort as Surveillance Theater While Experts Point to Addictive Code, Not Users
Efforts to ban social media for teenagers are already showing cracks, with reports indicating many parents found their kids circumvented compliance dates on platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
The sentiment is deeply fractured. Some users, like 'evilcultist', accuse regulatory moves of being thinly veiled government surveillance plays. Others argue the focus must be on the underlying code, with 'Jimbel' stressing addictive design flaws over age restrictions, and 'Instigate' targeting algorithms that prioritize profitable hate-content. Conversely, 'Afaithfulnihilist' demands parents, not governments, take primary supervision responsibility.
The overwhelming consensus dismisses legislative fixes. Commenters see the problem rooted in the 'extractive business models' and addictive algorithms, not the platforms themselves. The fault lines are drawn between those demanding systemic regulatory overhaul (like 'Dave' suggesting medical board oversight for algorithms) and those who believe the corporate structure, not the law, needs dismantling.
Key Points
Banning social media is ineffective.
Practical evidence shows parents' children maintained accounts after compliance dates, making bans structurally weak ('sbv').
Algorithmic design is the true culprit.
Focus must be on predatory design and algorithms, not penalizing users or banning platforms ('Jimbel', 'Instigate').
Regulation efforts are inherently suspicious.
'evilcultist' argues regulatory measures are likely extensions of invasive data collection and state surveillance.
Parental responsibility is paramount.
Some users like 'Afaithfulnihilist' place primary blame and solution solely on parents, rejecting external government intervention.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.