I would have thought that at least #Crickey would get it right. Despite msm and the govt itself calling it a ‘ban’, I don’t see it that way at all, nor should media reports report it as such IMO. This whole issue has more to do with the ‘duty of care’, ‘social licence’, and ‘self-regulating moderation’ which ought to be ‘imposed’ by legislation on digital services platform… it is not a ban on kids that is required, but a heavy ‘stick’ that the govt of the day may apply to unregulated (or indeed malfeasant) platforms, with warnings, fines, and de-registration or de-licencing (if this is a thing for digital platform operations in Australia). That is the discussion we should have about the legislation. How well does it do this? It matters not what ‘age’ an account holder is, there are social bounds and guardrails that must be imposed on the lawlessness of #TechBro technology with penalties, meaningful enforcements, and processes in law. Instead we have a circus of ‘privateers’ harvesting personal data (they’ll make a buck out of that I’m sure) because the guardrails are on the wrong side of the road. I thought that given the reporter’s passion on this topic, he’d’ve written up a better article and pushed for real-world debate on this rather than report on the govt’s ‘we’ve done something’ reaction to social outrage or do a quasi ad hominen piece on the govt and its Ministers.
#SocialMediaBan #AusPol #PublicDiscourse
Read More:
https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/12/10/anika-wells-crikey-interview-teen-social-media-ban/
Note: if it is behind a ‘subscribe wall’ wait a while and it will eventually come out from behind it. You may of course subscribe to #Criceky, as I do, for a non-Corporate media presentation of the news in Aus. I would commend Crickey to you regardless.
