[knolan]

Like enforcing mandatory bicycle helmets in Australia, this law is either massively misguided or serves another purpose. While politicians are often stupid, they can’t think we’re that stupid?

If you don’t want your kids accessing certain websites then the onus is on parents to control access. I do. If you want to do this structurally do it with ISPs and mobile carriers with router and SIM level filtering.

Put age limits on the ability to buy a device, SIM or internet package like we do for so many other things. It would be trivial to restrict access (and just as easy for smart kids to bypass as the current system).

Don’t use an iPad to babysit your child. Let them discover technology in an environment you’re confident and comfortable with. But it’s your job as a parent.

Or is all this really just about more mass surveillance under the guise of protecting the children?

[anenefan]

The plan to stop under 16 kids along with issues stemming from it in Australia from accessing social media areas that were using algorithms to target kids has been coveted by a couple if not more camps of thought.

The two mains ones I see are:

There are those who see making it against the law as a simple means to:

   fundamentally resolve legal issues stemming from any serious incident that plays out, fights, stabbings, abductions etc.
   
   Either gives parents of less than obedient kids the necessary excuse to, by whatever reasonable means, to stop their children wasting the mornings, school time, afternoons and nights, on social media OR a necessary impetus on parents to ensure their kids are / know how to be safe online.

   The algorithms that social media refused to remove from the last few years are reduced to being meaningless apart from being the same means to identify youngsters ... so instead of being referred to some other diet or BS area, the account can be flagged to be locked with a show cause. 
   

There are those who see it as a means to an end to require real identity for any social media, landing eventually needing extra personal verification details - age, living address etc.

   There was already a camp which wanted [1] to bring in verification for social media accounts, especially after a prominent incident in the US involving a somewhat anonymous user ... 
   
   (iirc) the person the govt at the time 2021 early 2022  brought in to work on bringing ID required for social media use ... is the same who was asked / tasked to bring in the under 16 legislation.  

   Believe that just like google couldn't tell a completely obvious spam site back in the 10's,  social media can't use those concerning or problematic algorithms to deduce an account in Australia might be a youngster.

Most phone plans in Australia require a form of identification which typically only adults have like a drivers licence, their own Australian medical card number, etc, so it's something parents themselves set up or crafty young kids work around it by gaining access to the relevant details.

[1] https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/governmen...

Edit hour later: typo bring not being

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

Dude, what? You’re upset about mandatory helmet laws? What next? Are you going to complain about seatbelts?

Being a libertarian is one thing, but acting like there is no good justification from those whom you oppose, is just… dishonest.

Bike helmet laws enjoy very widespread support nationwide and nobody is under any illusion as to their posed vs actual societal benefit. You’ve made up some boogeyman.

[marssaxman]

King County (where Seattle is located) repealed its mandatory helmet law in 2022, not because anybody has changed their mind about bike helmets being a good idea, but because the law primarily served as a discretionary-enforcement tool for harassment of homeless people and racial minorities. The law had no measurable impact on helmet-wearing rates or rates of brain injury, because people who can afford helmets generally choose to wear them. The city of Tacoma had repealed its mandatory helmet law two years prior, for similar reasons.

[galleywest200]

> because people who can afford helmets generally choose to wear

A helmet is much cheaper than the bicycle is it not? If you can afford the bike you can probably get the helmet.

[cwillu]

Homeless people don't buy many things. If they have something, it's probably one of the few things they owned and were able to keep when they became homeless.

[clipsy]

The costs are additive, unless you think there are people buying the helmet without a bike.

[knolan]

I’m not a libertarian. I’m not opposed to helmets and I and my family wear helmets while cycling. I fully support vaccines.

Mandatory helmet laws have the consequence of reducing the amount of people cycling. There’s no justification for them when compared to international practices.

Many of those who support mandatory helmet laws do not understand what the purpose of a helmet is and that it will not protect you from a collision with a vehicle.

[argimenes]

I suspect there is a high correlation between those who oppose mandatory bike helmet laws and antivaxxers.

[moi2388]

The entire countries of the Netherlands, Denmark and China, to name a few, disprove your thesis.

[knolan]

On the contrary I fully support vaccines and I wear a helmet while cycling. The mandatory helmet law in Australia backfired pretty badly by reducing the numbers of people cycling. Those who promise mandatory laws for bicycle helmets tend to be anti-cycling and also tend to support notions that cyclists pay “road tax”.

[TacticalCoder]

Seen that you take a dig at anti-vaxxers... To be fair there's also a high correlation between the pro-vaxxers and those who believed the virus couldn't have possibly escaped from a lab.

Which was the official tune of the media, all synched, hammered for years. Now that tune has changed but that's another story.