It's also a massive propaganda channel. We can argue about whether any one particular state is involved in that or not but gut reaction is that if this were the real concern, their solution would be to regulate and censor what is posted online rather than kicking them off the platform and thus detaching them from the teat of (alleged) indoctrination. (that push for censorship also exists).

Maybe Australia and the US are not involved in any social media propaganda campaigns but, at least in the case of the US, there is most certainly an abundance of precedence.

I don't know the sincere feelings of these types wrt the safety and well-being of children but I don't think the goal is "getting them back" wrt policy or whatever.

▲

ang_cire 3 days ago | parent [-]

> It's also a massive propaganda channel.

The problem is that school curriculum is as well. I remember going to school in Texas and hearing the phrase "Northern War of Aggression" to describe the Civil War.

Censorship is never about cutting off information, it's only ever about cutting off information that the censors don't like. Given how openly hostile both AU and the US's governments are to progressive politics and worldviews, I am dubious that this isn't about controlling kids' access to a more open view of the world than their schools will give them.

▲

b00ty4breakfast 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm still unconvinced. I think it is a very obvious backdoor to forcing online ID without having to call it an ID law.

	▲	ang_cire 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think you and I are on the same side of this particular argument.

▲

bamboozled 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Australian government isn’t banning books. It’s banning access to harmful content for people under 16.

One morning I logged into Reddit and saw a video of Charlie Kirk get his head blown off. I didn’t want to see that, but for some reason it wasn’t taken down yet. I’m really glad my 12 year old daughter didn’t have to see that…

	▲	ang_cire 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It’s banning access to harmful content for people under 16. Even the most comically overt authoritarians will use justifications like this to ban content. > One morning I logged into Reddit and saw a video of Charlie Kirk get his head blown off. Then I think you may have seen a fake video. No such thing happened to him. If we're discussing serious subjects such as censorship and deaths, avoiding hyperbole to falsely bolster an argument is probably best. > I’m really glad my 12 year old daughter didn’t have to see that… Why would you give your 12yo daughter unrestricted access to Reddit, as a parent? Why must the government stop her, for you? Also, since that already happened, and government restrictions weren't in place, and she didn't see it, clearly you've just disproved the need for those restrictions to avoid that outcome; your daughter didn't see the harmful content, despite there being no government-mandated restriction.

▲

immibis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Luckily this is much less the case in Australia - or pretty much any developed country.

It's still somewhat the case, but the propaganda in schools outside of the USA is much less than the propaganda on social media.

▲

ang_cire 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I had the uncommon privilege of attending a year of high school in Japan, and rest assured there is no lack of propaganda in other countries' schools, even if often by omission of truths.

I am not Australian, but I suspect high school textbooks are likely less than entirely forthright about sensitive subjects like Residential Schools and their role in settler-colonialism.

	▲	immibis 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And it was much less than the propaganda on social media, wasn't it?