Pardon the language, but this is complete dodge-fuckery.
This is how they want to end online anonymity, usher in complete online surveilllance, and finally enact the 'driver's licence for the internet'. It will, as you note, ultimately tie in with the legislated digital ID - the only question then being, when/how to they link a centralised digital currency to it, and a social credit system.
Here's the submission I emailed to the committee earlier tonight, if it helps anyone:
Dear Environment and Communications Legislation Committee,
I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. These concerns, shared by family and many friends and colleagues, are manifold and serious, and the key elements are expounded below:
1. First and foremost, the enaction of this legislation would require digital verification for all people to utilise social media, e.g. through a digital ID, so as to identify those under 16. Requiring digital identification for social media is the first step in removing online anonymity, whereby gov’t agencies and corporate entities can surveil what citizens say and do on the internet—a gross breach of the right to privacy.
2. While we can agree that social media is potentially harmful for children to be on, it is not, and should not, be the role of governments to police this. This is a parental right, and government should support this right, not subsume it.
3. The specifics and mechanisms of how the age verification, for all social media users, would work have not been released. Rushing through this bill without disclosure of how it would work, and without proper public consultation thereof, is an abrogation of due process. It suggests that there are likely to be flaws or potential violations of people’s rights in the process, and that it is likely to entail substantial future amendments or complications.
4. There is a general concern of increased data collection, by both private and public entities, through requiring digital verification, which raises material privacy concerns for individuals.
This bill is, at its core, a violation of people’s privacy and anonymity online. It should not have even been formulated—let alone rushed through, with one just day for public submissions. This rushed process is deeply undemocratic, and I and my friends and family will do our utmost to ensure that any of our representatives supporting this bill will not be re-elected.
Thankyou Rebekah. I did not realise that I, as a septuagenarian, would have to prove I'm not under 16. Another sneaky way of government pushing their totalitarian ID through?
So the government is concerned about youth mental health? Mmm. None of the Aussie governments seemed concerned about that during the great plague. So wherein lay the motivation? Is it vote chasing. It will be a big hit with parents and grandparents. And that is a big chunk of the electorate.
If not votes then it must be that Albo is acting under orders from the string pullers.
Rebekah, you have indicated your belief that social media is problematic for teenagers (especially females, presumably) and that access by youngsters (particularly males, presumably) to porn (before they are psycho-sexually ready for it, presumably) is also problematic.
Yet you seem opposed to this bill on the grounds it is a Trojan horse, or some such.
What is YOUR solution? I invite you to wear your constructive hat ...not to be confused with construction hat.:)
Btw, I understand the UK dealt with (or was planning to deal with) the issue of youths accessing porn by having some form of digital ID. That was about 8 years ago, if my memory serves me well.
I don’t have a position on the bill. I’m not for or against it. As I said above, I have not yet finished exploring solutions because I’m only part way through the report from the Senate inquiry into social media, and the report from the inquiry into the bill hasn’t been handed down yet. I’ve spoken with some people who are tech savvy about what decentralised digital ID would look like and whether it’s a viable option, but again, I’m not finished exploring these options. What I do have a strong opinion on is the rushed way in which Labor is ramming the bill into law (abetted by Libs) without proper inquiry, which I think is BS.
This vid came up on my radar today. It is the first time I have watched Q@A for a long time. The audience was clearly not with Claire but broke into spontaneous applause of the highly intelligent 🤣 MP who spoke via a link.https://youtu.be/g5XlQOtBKyo?si=f8lStmFtrF05P0KA
I sacked this show ages ago due to its lack of balance.
Pardon the language, but this is complete dodge-fuckery.
This is how they want to end online anonymity, usher in complete online surveilllance, and finally enact the 'driver's licence for the internet'. It will, as you note, ultimately tie in with the legislated digital ID - the only question then being, when/how to they link a centralised digital currency to it, and a social credit system.
Here's the submission I emailed to the committee earlier tonight, if it helps anyone:
Dear Environment and Communications Legislation Committee,
I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. These concerns, shared by family and many friends and colleagues, are manifold and serious, and the key elements are expounded below:
1. First and foremost, the enaction of this legislation would require digital verification for all people to utilise social media, e.g. through a digital ID, so as to identify those under 16. Requiring digital identification for social media is the first step in removing online anonymity, whereby gov’t agencies and corporate entities can surveil what citizens say and do on the internet—a gross breach of the right to privacy.
2. While we can agree that social media is potentially harmful for children to be on, it is not, and should not, be the role of governments to police this. This is a parental right, and government should support this right, not subsume it.
3. The specifics and mechanisms of how the age verification, for all social media users, would work have not been released. Rushing through this bill without disclosure of how it would work, and without proper public consultation thereof, is an abrogation of due process. It suggests that there are likely to be flaws or potential violations of people’s rights in the process, and that it is likely to entail substantial future amendments or complications.
4. There is a general concern of increased data collection, by both private and public entities, through requiring digital verification, which raises material privacy concerns for individuals.
This bill is, at its core, a violation of people’s privacy and anonymity online. It should not have even been formulated—let alone rushed through, with one just day for public submissions. This rushed process is deeply undemocratic, and I and my friends and family will do our utmost to ensure that any of our representatives supporting this bill will not be re-elected.
Regards,
Cheers Jake, as time is pressing, and I’ve got to shoot off to work, I’ve literally copied your email to send, and stated what I’ve done and why.
Thanks mate.
Kindly,
Mike
No need ta fuckin swear, pal.
Thankyou Rebekah. I did not realise that I, as a septuagenarian, would have to prove I'm not under 16. Another sneaky way of government pushing their totalitarian ID through?
They aggressive way in which they're pushing this through isn't exactly allaying fears on that front...
You're right, if there was nothing for us to worry about, they wouldn't have to rush it through without proper scrutiny.
As always Rebecca, thank you for your important, timely work.
So the government is concerned about youth mental health? Mmm. None of the Aussie governments seemed concerned about that during the great plague. So wherein lay the motivation? Is it vote chasing. It will be a big hit with parents and grandparents. And that is a big chunk of the electorate.
If not votes then it must be that Albo is acting under orders from the string pullers.
Perhaps it is a combo of both.
Submission written and lodged thank you Rebekah
Rebekah, you have indicated your belief that social media is problematic for teenagers (especially females, presumably) and that access by youngsters (particularly males, presumably) to porn (before they are psycho-sexually ready for it, presumably) is also problematic.
Yet you seem opposed to this bill on the grounds it is a Trojan horse, or some such.
What is YOUR solution? I invite you to wear your constructive hat ...not to be confused with construction hat.:)
Btw, I understand the UK dealt with (or was planning to deal with) the issue of youths accessing porn by having some form of digital ID. That was about 8 years ago, if my memory serves me well.
I don’t have a position on the bill. I’m not for or against it. As I said above, I have not yet finished exploring solutions because I’m only part way through the report from the Senate inquiry into social media, and the report from the inquiry into the bill hasn’t been handed down yet. I’ve spoken with some people who are tech savvy about what decentralised digital ID would look like and whether it’s a viable option, but again, I’m not finished exploring these options. What I do have a strong opinion on is the rushed way in which Labor is ramming the bill into law (abetted by Libs) without proper inquiry, which I think is BS.
This vid came up on my radar today. It is the first time I have watched Q@A for a long time. The audience was clearly not with Claire but broke into spontaneous applause of the highly intelligent 🤣 MP who spoke via a link.https://youtu.be/g5XlQOtBKyo?si=f8lStmFtrF05P0KA
I sacked this show ages ago due to its lack of balance.