This statement presumes that children can be harmed by watching videos. It’s a common hypothesis often treated as fact, despite the lack of any evidence.
My life is made much easier if I can be confident my children aren't being radicalised by MRAs or TERFs. I can hear what they're watching now - I think parents should actually parent - but I think it's a stretch to say there's no evidence to suggest children can be harmed by watching videos. I wouldn't let a five year old watch Nightmare on Elm Street, and I have directly observed harm from videos, if only in terms of nightmares and fear of being left alone.
It's not a ban on using YouTube or other social media services. It's stupider than that; it's a ban on making an account. See Crikey for an explainer. Today, a child can have an account that their parent/s can also see. That account can be steered away from harmful content. Once the ban goes into place, the child is at thr whims of YouTube's algorithm, with no real ability to govern what they see. It's not that this law is stupid - which it is - it's that it's actively counterproductive.
Imagine how utterly terrible you'd have to be to find yourselves hated more than insurance companies. That politicians in the US feel like they have to turn to insurers to require police to maybe stop extrajudicial assassinations is not a great place to be in.
Australia more or less has the same violent games as Americans can access, and the same social media, music, and whatever else you might want to think about. Many other countries do too. What they don't have is mass shootings, and a complicit media completely unwilling to call out the causes of those mass shootings.
There's an interesting analogy here with Australia's Robodebt program. Robodebt used data matching (in a likely deliberately incompetent way) to also kick people off benefits that they were entitled to. Its stated aim of fraud prevention turned out to be somewhat flawed. I suspect Americans are going to see similar failings from this program, but as usual, by the time the failures are rectified a lot of lives will have been ruined.
In Australia, under the National Medicines Policy, the Australian government largely is the sole purchaser of medicines. They're then sold to the people who need them at about AU$40, or under AU$10 at concession. If you (or your family) spend more than around $1,600 ($400 concession) in a year, the cost drops to $10 or free. The fact that the government is the buyer has a huge effect on the power imbalance that you'd otherwise see. Patent reform may be helpful, but the biggest thing the US could do to limit drug prices is simply look at what everyone else has done, and copy someone else - anyone else.
This is exactly why I don't connect any TVs directly to the internet. There's a price premium for it, but I connect my TVs to AppleTVs and use them to run any of the apps I want for streaming or FTA TV channels. Also, every TV interface I've seen is hot garbage, but that's a separate problem.
The Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) saw its own news app shoot to the top of the Apple App Store charts in Australia. Ironically, the original draft of this stupid law was so biased towards Murdoch that it originally excluded ABC from getting any money, and was only added later, after some folks pointed out how blatantly corrupt it was to leave them out and just funnel more money to Murdoch. But it's not just ABC that has benefited.
So this isn't the complete picture. The ABC is completely publicly funded, and is the most trusted media organisation in Australia. The conservative government hates the ABC. They've been steadily defunding it for decades, and far-right think tanks that have a pipeline from think tank to Liberal Member of Parliament want the ABC sold. This legislation weakens the ABC, because it allows the government to steadily reduce the ABC's income, which they'll do by a larger amount than any such link tax brings in.
"Equally, however, this is an important moment to remember that the proposed code was not about protecting the many organisations that generate content and are now contending with blank Facebook pages. Instead, this was tech policy-making driven by large news media companies who saw the opportunity to extract value from an unpopular opponent."
No. As I noted above, law enforcement is not called on Australian kids in schools as a routine matter. Even the race-baiting tabloid the Herald-Scum running a beat-up campaign managed to fail, with a 2015 story noting an average of 240 police attendances per year. Victoria has 2,500 schools.
Cops aren't really connected in with the school system in Australia. There's no police in schools program here. When the Victorian opposition suggested cops in schools, it did not go down well. Normal school disciplinary actions aren't reported to the cops unless the matter is criminal (and even then, like the policy notes, this would be for serious matters). So I don't think that this would be for in-school discipline 'offences'.
For added information, Dandenong is where the lies about "African crime gangs" were spread by cynical politicians to try to win votes. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The hysteria about it likely cost the race-baiters votes, contributing to their loss in the most recent Victorian election.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by alister.
I'm fairly sure no children are watching the 5 o'clock news. The only people watching that have great grandchildren.
It's not a ban - it's even stupider than that
It's not a ban on using YouTube or other social media services. It's stupider than that; it's a ban on making an account. See Crikey for an explainer. Today, a child can have an account that their parent/s can also see. That account can be steered away from harmful content. Once the ban goes into place, the child is at thr whims of YouTube's algorithm, with no real ability to govern what they see. It's not that this law is stupid - which it is - it's that it's actively counterproductive.
Insurance companies finally find someone worse than them
Imagine how utterly terrible you'd have to be to find yourselves hated more than insurance companies. That politicians in the US feel like they have to turn to insurers to require police to maybe stop extrajudicial assassinations is not a great place to be in.
We have video games and social media too
Australia more or less has the same violent games as Americans can access, and the same social media, music, and whatever else you might want to think about. Many other countries do too. What they don't have is mass shootings, and a complicit media completely unwilling to call out the causes of those mass shootings.
Better reset their phones
The authors of this report, as well as everyone around them, better start resetting their phones, probably once per day.
Analogy with Australia's Robodedt program
There's an interesting analogy here with Australia's Robodebt program. Robodebt used data matching (in a likely deliberately incompetent way) to also kick people off benefits that they were entitled to. Its stated aim of fraud prevention turned out to be somewhat flawed. I suspect Americans are going to see similar failings from this program, but as usual, by the time the failures are rectified a lot of lives will have been ruined.
Australia can be a good example here
In Australia, under the National Medicines Policy, the Australian government largely is the sole purchaser of medicines. They're then sold to the people who need them at about AU$40, or under AU$10 at concession. If you (or your family) spend more than around $1,600 ($400 concession) in a year, the cost drops to $10 or free. The fact that the government is the buyer has a huge effect on the power imbalance that you'd otherwise see. Patent reform may be helpful, but the biggest thing the US could do to limit drug prices is simply look at what everyone else has done, and copy someone else - anyone else.
Don't connect your 'smart' TV to the internet
This is exactly why I don't connect any TVs directly to the internet. There's a price premium for it, but I connect my TVs to AppleTVs and use them to run any of the apps I want for streaming or FTA TV channels. Also, every TV interface I've seen is hot garbage, but that's a separate problem.
I'm running as the antifa candidate
I'm moving to Florida and running as the antifa candidate for every political office I can find.
Re:
This guy seems like a right cvnt.
The bit that's missing re the ABC
So this isn't the complete picture. The ABC is completely publicly funded, and is the most trusted media organisation in Australia. The conservative government hates the ABC. They've been steadily defunding it for decades, and far-right think tanks that have a pipeline from think tank to Liberal Member of Parliament want the ABC sold. This legislation weakens the ABC, because it allows the government to steadily reduce the ABC's income, which they'll do by a larger amount than any such link tax brings in.
Re: Re: They should pay for content
Lizzie O'Shea in Overland has a typically good take on the matter.
Re: "unless the matter is criminal"
No. As I noted above, law enforcement is not called on Australian kids in schools as a routine matter. Even the race-baiting tabloid the Herald-Scum running a beat-up campaign managed to fail, with a 2015 story noting an average of 240 police attendances per year. Victoria has 2,500 schools.
Cops aren't really connected with schools here
Cops aren't really connected in with the school system in Australia. There's no police in schools program here. When the Victorian opposition suggested cops in schools, it did not go down well. Normal school disciplinary actions aren't reported to the cops unless the matter is criminal (and even then, like the policy notes, this would be for serious matters). So I don't think that this would be for in-school discipline 'offences'.
For added information, Dandenong is where the lies about "African crime gangs" were spread by cynical politicians to try to win votes. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The hysteria about it likely cost the race-baiters votes, contributing to their loss in the most recent Victorian election.