I haven’t really heard of kids going hungry in Australia. Social security for young families is pretty good. There’s loads of free activities, and childcare is heavily subsidised and very accessible.
The purported benefits of the legislation was not to “keep teens and kids safe” from predators and so on, but rather to preserve their cognitive function. At least that’s how I understood it.
I’m not suggesting this was the best approach, but I don’t really buy that the legislation was made to enhance surveillance. That was the intention of some corporate supporters perhaps, but the legislators genuinely thought this would improve the quality of life of Australians.
I haven’t really heard of kids going hungry in Australia. Social security for young families is pretty good. There’s loads of free activities, and childcare is heavily subsidised and very accessible.
According to the ACOSS & UNSW Partnership, latest data from the ABS Survey of Income and Housing, indicates that in 2019–20, one in six children (16.6percent) in Australia lived below the poverty line after taking account of their housing costs, equating to 761 000 Australian children.[13]
I guess maybe I should be more vauge, and also research a lot into the current climate of children specifically in australia, rather than these same fucking laws being shoved down the throats of the entire world, by , I have no idea who it could possibly be…
enhance surveillance. That was the intention of some corporate supporters perhaps
Facebook fucking wrote these laws worldwide, and are looking to get more fucking money, data and power through it. It’s called regulatory capture
The purported benefits of the legislation was not to “keep teens and kids safe” from predators and so on, but rather to preserve their cognitive function. At least that’s how I understood it.
That’s not the job of anyone but the fucking parents. The internet has been a toxic shithole since the dawn of ARPAnet , and it’s going to be that way until human communications cease entirely. As a responsable parent, you fucking buy Net nanny or equivalent and hey presto, no one’s human rights need to be violated.
That was the intention of some corporate supporters perhaps, but the legislators genuinely thought this would improve the quality of life of Australians.
Yeah sure. I brought my proof, show me more laws and regulations the ghouls that put this in action actually put effort into that actually, practically, make the lives of children actually better. Or are they all regulatory capture “Give BP and Shell a 100% tax cut , let’s say it moved me… TO A BIGGER HOUSE!”
PS : Let me guess, you also believe the PATRIOT ACT , Tempora, and dragnet surveilance is for “Anti terrorism” and “national security”?
You forgot that one of the most public corporate mouth pieces pushed hard for this with funding from advertisers who wanted to avoid increased oversight on online gambling advertising. They knew there was only enough political capital to do these things one at a time and wanted to keep the gravy train running. Not to mention they can now say “Well we assume social media companies are filtering out kids so we can advertise online gambling with a clear conscience.” Wonder how many kids living below the poverty line would have their material circumstances improved by any impediment to gambling?
It’s almost as if the legislation was made to enhance surveillance over adults and tie web browsing to IRL identity and not actually keep teens safe.
Because if they wanted to keep teens and kids safe, they’d create a food program or free activities and childcare for them.
I haven’t really heard of kids going hungry in Australia. Social security for young families is pretty good. There’s loads of free activities, and childcare is heavily subsidised and very accessible.
The purported benefits of the legislation was not to “keep teens and kids safe” from predators and so on, but rather to preserve their cognitive function. At least that’s how I understood it.
I’m not suggesting this was the best approach, but I don’t really buy that the legislation was made to enhance surveillance. That was the intention of some corporate supporters perhaps, but the legislators genuinely thought this would improve the quality of life of Australians.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/PovertyinAustralia/The_extent_and_nature_of_poverty_in_Australia/Chapter_4_-_Child_poverty
I guess maybe I should be more vauge, and also research a lot into the current climate of children specifically in australia, rather than these same fucking laws being shoved down the throats of the entire world, by , I have no idea who it could possibly be…
https://web.archive.org/web/20260313160140/https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings/
Facebook fucking wrote these laws worldwide, and are looking to get more fucking money, data and power through it. It’s called regulatory capture
That’s not the job of anyone but the fucking parents. The internet has been a toxic shithole since the dawn of ARPAnet , and it’s going to be that way until human communications cease entirely. As a responsable parent, you fucking buy Net nanny or equivalent and hey presto, no one’s human rights need to be violated.
Yeah sure. I brought my proof, show me more laws and regulations the ghouls that put this in action actually put effort into that actually, practically, make the lives of children actually better. Or are they all regulatory capture “Give BP and Shell a 100% tax cut , let’s say it moved me… TO A BIGGER HOUSE!”
PS : Let me guess, you also believe the PATRIOT ACT , Tempora, and dragnet surveilance is for “Anti terrorism” and “national security”?
You forgot that one of the most public corporate mouth pieces pushed hard for this with funding from advertisers who wanted to avoid increased oversight on online gambling advertising. They knew there was only enough political capital to do these things one at a time and wanted to keep the gravy train running. Not to mention they can now say “Well we assume social media companies are filtering out kids so we can advertise online gambling with a clear conscience.” Wonder how many kids living below the poverty line would have their material circumstances improved by any impediment to gambling?