6 Comments
User's avatar
mikec's avatar

Well argued, Jesse. Giving it a go surely can't be worse than doing nothing!

Expand full comment
Chris Philpott's avatar

Well said, Jesse.

Expand full comment
Ben Marino's avatar

Agree completely! At least something is being done. How many are suffering needlessly while all the navel gazing is going on about line drawing!

Expand full comment
Marie H's avatar

Couldn't agree more

Expand full comment
Cindy's avatar

💯👍No notes. Thankfully THAT side of technology wasn't around "in my day" but bullying in person was harmful enough without the same via social media, AND from total strangers as well as your real life circle 😱 AND from a souless algorithm that has no parent to discover the behaviour & deal to the offender(s) 🤬

Expand full comment
A Halfling’s View's avatar

May I suggest, Jesse, that you read the legislation. It does not ban under 16's from accessing social media. Nowhere in the legislation does it say that. It is more nuanced than a ban. What it requires is that certain (but not all) social media platforms put age verification protocols in place to prevent access to those platforms by those under 16. What will happen (if it works as hoped by the legislators) is that if an under 16 tries to open an account with TikTok (for example) they will be unable to do so. And Albanese acknowledged that there will be tech savvy youngsters who will try and circumvemt to age verification protocols. But a ban it isn't.

Expand full comment