Roast U-16 Blocked from Social Media

Remove this Banner Ad

leon123 said:
And thats super good and no argument from me re your view. But, i think we need larger societal debate, backed by actual facts that we have
Click to expand...
There is no room for debate. A child will not resort to taking their own life just because they don’t have social media.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sr36 said:
To generalise relating to gender. Boys game, girls do social media. Pretty similar risks regarding potential negative outcomes. One is just a threat to Rupert, the other isn't.
Click to expand...
Boys don’t just game. They follow, and live by this guys ideals.
www.bbc.com

Andrew Tate charged with rape and human trafficking

After appearing in court on Wednesday Andrew Tate said: "I look forward to being found innocent."
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
We see it in the songs that schoolboys sing while on public transport. We see it in boys referring to girls/women as “cum buckets”. We see it in posts like “your body, my choice”.
Parents have shown that they are not raising boys to be good men, so government must step in.
And the only real opposition is being fuelled by the social media companies who are worried about the hit to revenue, and share price, that will come from removing this portion of their audience.
 
emuboy said:
I agree with this, banning something has the effect of making it more desirable, look at Prohibition in the 1920s in America. Parents will be less able to keep an eye on their kids social media activity, and the biggest danger is driving all of this underground where there are even more dangers.
Click to expand...
Oh my.
Who pays for these phones/computers etc? Who pays for the internet access?
The under 16’s?
No, it’s the parents. So they still have total control regarding access. If they actually want to have control.
And there’s the issue. They don’t want to have control and are not being good parents now. So government has to act.
Research nears out the fact that parents have abdicated their responsibilities;
https://thedailyaus.com.au/stories/average-young-person-views-pr0n-before-age-14-our-watch-says/
The average young person will view pornography (or pr0n) for the first time at 13.6 years old, according to a new report from Our Watch.

The national violence prevention organisation also found that young girls are viewing pr0n two years earlier, on average, compared to young girls in 2018.

It warned that online pr0n can negatively affect young people’s attitudes towards gender, sex, and relationships.
Click to expand...
“As much as 90% of pornography content online features verbal, physical and sexual violence towards women,” Our Watch noted.

It said that “pornography can perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and strengthen attitudes supportive of violence against women”.
Click to expand...
We are in an epidemic of violence towards women. Social Media has a lot of influence in this area.
 
Black_White said:
Boys don’t just game. They follow, and live by this guys ideals.
www.bbc.com

Andrew Tate charged with rape and human trafficking

After appearing in court on Wednesday Andrew Tate said: "I look forward to being found innocent."
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
We see it in the songs that schoolboys sing while on public transport. We see it in boys referring to girls/women as “cum buckets”. We see it in posts like “your body, my choice”.
Parents have shown that they are not raising boys to be good men, so government must step in.
And the only real opposition is being fuelled by the social media companies who are worried about the hit to revenue, and share price, that will come from removing this portion of their audience.
Click to expand...
If you really want to see concerning social interactions, check out the social media component of gaming sites.

You don't need social media to watch pr0n. If you show any interest in sexy images, your search engine algorithms will send some your way.

In terms of your claims of an epidemic of violence against women - reported domestic violence against women is down over 60% since the 90s, reported rape down over 50%. With both events more likely to be reported in the current age, so probably down further than that. If we're describing an epidemic of violence against women. It's been a long one, and we are showing signs of being on the way out of it.

The addiction element of tech is a major issue with consequent mental health issues, but it's certainly not confined to the big social media platforms. The algorithms throughout the net that feed you a stream of bias is also a big issue in social cohesion, but once again widespread throughout the net. Much of the other stuff is just typical conservative back in my day talking points not supported by data.
 
Last edited:
sr36 said:
In terms of your claims of an epidemic of violence against women - reported domestic violence against women is down over 60% since the 90s, reported rape down over 50%. With both events more likely to be reported in the current age, so probably down further than that. If we're describing an epidemic of violence against women. It's been a long one, and we are showing signs of being on the way out of it.
Click to expand...
www.abs.gov.au

Recorded sexual assaults reach 31-year high

www.abs.gov.au www.abs.gov.au

31 year high.
And gone from 126 per 100,000 to 136 per 100,000 in just one year.
 
It’s amazing how people defend platforms that only have money generation as the overbidding core value.
They don’t care about the consequences of their content, and they really don’t want to take steps to protect your children from the content that fills their coffers.

https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/...ia-exposes-young-australians-to-harmful-pr0n/

On platforms like Facebook and Instagram, people get spam messages from explicit accounts while self-generated images get shared on Snapchat.
Click to expand...

I suppose if we were talking about Murdoch there would be much less defence.
 
Black_White said:
It’s amazing how people defend platforms that only have money generation as the overbidding core value.
They don’t care about the consequences of their content, and they really don’t want to take steps to protect your children from the content that fills their coffers.


I suppose if we were talking about Murdoch there would be much less defence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no one would bat an eyelid if print media was banned ...
 
Black_White said:
It’s amazing how people defend platforms that only have money generation as the overbidding core value.
They don’t care about the consequences of their content, and they really don’t want to take steps to protect your children from the content that fills their coffers.




I suppose if we were talking about Murdoch there would be much less defence.
Click to expand...
There is good and bad..... my nephew is on a facebook group that discusses chemistry .... and no, not breaking bad chemistry
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

KrispyKremePie said:
They should have just banned social media altogether the very first moment someone thought it would be a good idea to post a picture of the meal they were about to eat on Facebook… I bet that meal probably had pineapple on it too! 😝
Click to expand...

So what about Forums like here and Chats?

They can be Called Social Media
 
Black_White said:
Well there’s plenty of documentation about children taking their life because of social media.
So I’m going with the “won’t take their life without” argument.
Click to expand...

True but there still been Bullying before Social Media

I was glad as a Kid when you got home from School you could just Relex not being at School

I had Friends over at Times but not talking with them 100% of the Time now with Mobile Phone and Social Media
 
Black_White said:
You've got to ask what the future holds for youth now that meta has decided it no longer has a responsibility to publish facts.
I think we've got ahead of the curve with this ban. Watch other countries swing behind it in the next 12 months when "ordinary" social media becomes cesspools like twitter.
Click to expand...
Misinformation and obscenely biased information is a different kettle of fish to the reasoning behind banning social media.

You're not going to get a population savvy to it with bans.
 
Black_White said:
You've got to ask what the future holds for youth now that meta has decided it no longer has a responsibility to publish facts.
I think we've got ahead of the curve with this ban. Watch other countries swing behind it in the next 12 months when "ordinary" social media becomes cesspools like twitter.
Click to expand...
Shows how bad The Internet has Become

Not a super safe spot for anyone these days
 
It's a clumsy stab at regulation by the Feds, but there's not a lot of control in the face of all the US Billionaires jerking our chains.

If Social Media was a drug or food it would've been banned years ago for the related health issues.

Yes parents should exercise more control but loads of parents are addicted to this crap as well.

I strongly dislike Murdoch but he's not wrong that Facebook and Twitter and the rest steal other people's work.

It's a new industry, it'll take a while to get it under control. Same thing happened with printing in the 16th 17th century. It blew up western Europe, fanned sectarian violence and literal witch hunts. There was a brisk trade in pr0n masquerading as warnings about Satan too "the devil appears at parties and bangs all the ladies like this [crude woodcut pr0n of rimming].
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Roast U-16 Blocked from Social Media

Similar threads

Black_White
  • Locked
Thread hijacked, don’t bother entering unless you want to be bored by repetition.
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
207
Views
9K
Chief
Chief

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top