Politics, policies & power: John Mearsheimer’s blunt analysis | Centre Stage
План Израиля по войне с Хамас до последнего палестинца, имеющий реальной целью ликвидацию всех палестинских анклавов на территории страны и значительное расширение её жизненного пространства за счёт территорий соседей, имеет одну важную отраслевую особенность.
Палестинцы – древний народ и Израиль стоит на их земле.
Сами израильтяне – их ближайшие древние родственники.
Тем не менее, совершенно понятно, почему никакого государства у палестинцев нет и быть не могло.
Как не могло и не должно было быть никакого государственности у бывших союзных республик – губерний, включая Финляндию и Польшу.
Вернее, они могли и должны были иметь государственность, но чисто номинальную, сохраняя ко всеобщему спокойствию выраженный политический и военный нейтралитет.
Почему?
По тому, что как Вы помните из Теории Рекламы, роль любой и всякой упаковки
состоит не только в сбережении самого Товара/Решения, но и в его идентификации, ибо Язык – критерий преобразования Опыта
.
Кроме того, значимая роль Услуги, как Упаковки Товара/Решения
состоит не только в защите Продукта от окружающей его среды, но и в защите окружающей Продукт среды от последствий такого взаимодействия – его Процессов.
Соответственно.
Если Израиль ликвидирует упаковку - инерцоид народов Палестины со своей территории и со своих границ, то это не только не приведет к решению проблем с безопасностью Израиля, но тут же снимет прежние ограничения в свободе действий его соседей – потенциальных противников (на территории которых эти палестинцы окажутся).
Важно помнить, что сами по себе палестинцы (как, например украинцы) никому не нужны, но вот поводом для консолидации усилий противников Израиля (как, например России), являются превосходным.
P.S.
Поэтому России не выгодно изгнание украинцев в Европу, но целесообразен их организованный регресс, политическая кастрация и низведение их государственности до совершенно номинальной.
_________________
С пониманием и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Весьма редко а.п. использует свою цитату в качестве мотива поста. И сегодня, как раз тот самый случай.
В своём
а.п. допустил схожесть новейших событий в США и событий 30-ти летней давности в СССР, когда несмотря на противодействие номенклатуры на пост главы России избрался Ельцин.
А спустя месяц, Горбачёва попытались отстранить от власти члены ГКЧП…
Цитата:
По скромному мнению а.п., сперва произойдёт вот это:
Цитата:
Инаугурация Ельцина.Б.Н 10.07.1991 Года
А потом, вот это:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Время. Эфир 22 августа 1991
Цитата:
Пресс-конференция ГКЧП, Москва, 19 августа 1991 г.
Тогда, как Вы помните, у ГКЧП ничего не получилось.
Ельцин вернул Горбачёва из Фароса в Москву
А спустя три месяца СССР не стало.
Фактор ГКЧП значительно укорил процесс распада СССР, но сам процесс распада начался ещё при Хрущёве.
При Брежневе его старательно игнорировали.
При Черненко и Андропове стало не до того.
А при Горбачёве распад из тайного стал явным.
Михаил Сергеевич пытался возглавить упущенный процесс, но не смог и только усугубил ситуацию.
Можно ли было предотвратить распад СССР?
Безусловно – да.
Но, для этого надо было иметь весь последующий опыт следующих трех десятилетий и решимость Путина.
А такого лидера во главе СССР тогда не было (и не могло быть), ведь Горбачёв старательно удалял от власти всех, кто, по его мнению, был способен решить проблему СССР по другому.
Впрочем, а.п. отвлёкся.
Победа Трампа подобна победе Ельцина.
США сейчас переживают тот же этап своего Жизненного Цикла, что пережила Россия 30 лет тому.
То есть Россия этот этап уже пережила и с честью из него выходит.
А у США, как понятно, все впереди.
Их Трамп – наш Ельцин.
Вопрос в том, Ельцин какой?
Июньский или декабрьский?
До ГКЧП или после?
Если дворцовый переворот и отстранение Байдена не считается, тогда это Ельцин «летний» и США ещё ждет изоляция Харис, свой «ослиный» ГКЧП и возвращение Байдена Трампом к власти…
А если считать дворцовый переворот и отстранение Байдена от власти и воцарение Камалы, аналогом нашего ГКЧП, то тогда нынешний Трамп это Ельцин «зимний»(Трамп «летний» - прошлая каденция). И тогда к декабрю США созревают и в январе Трамп констатирует очевидное – США всё.
Цитата:
_________________
С недопониманием и очевидными сомнениями, Dimitriy.
Как почувствовать накал борьбы за власть в США на своем личном примере?
Напишите в Word Office на русском, с маленькой буквы, фамилии настоящего и будущего президентов США: «байден» и «трамп».
И Вы убедитесь, что имя:
• «байден» - обязательно будет подчёркнуто, как ошибка;
• «трамп» - точно, нет.
А.п. искренне надеялся, что после выборов, с ближайшим текущим обновлением это «недоразумение» будет устранено, но не тут то было.
Последнее обновление программного обеспечения Майкрософт было вчера и ничего не изменилось.
P.S. Да, действительно, такая же ошибка свойственна и «Телеграмм» Дурова, но Word Office это специализированный текстовый редактор и ему положено соответствовать.
_________________
С сожалением и понятными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Помните, в одном из постов лет десять тому, мы обсуждали, как Системы утилизируют ответственность?
Когда плохо:
• ИСО>ЕСО, например Россия – утилизирует ответственность внутри;
• ЕСО>ИСО, например США – утилизирует ответственность снаружи.
То есть, если США плохо, они тут же развязывают несколько маленьких победоносных войн.
Но, если перед США встает вопрос о будущем своей государственности, то маленьких победоносных становится не достаточно.
Что бы исправить такую ситуацию нужна одна, большая, единственная, под которую можно списать всё…
США сейчас больше, чем очень плохо – им сейчас так же «хорошо», как СССР летом 1991.
Выражая суждения о чужой стране, мы можем и должны не доверять себе, но мы не можем и не должны не доверять мнению патриотической интеллигенции этой страны, которая рефлексируя подобно нам, так же не понимает, что происходит с их родиной.
P.S.
Если а.п. прав, Трампу следует подавить «бунт на болоте» и вернуть Байдену власть (и ответственность).
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Jeffrey Sachs: Russia's Weapons Of Destruction In RED ALERT After Putin APPROVES Nuclear Doctrine
Цитата:
Glenn Greenwald: Dangerous New Escalation in Russia, & Our Blackmailed Politicians
_________________
С дежавю и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Australia Has Barred Everyone Under 16 From Social Media. Will It Work?
The law sets a minimum age for users of platforms like TikTok, Instagram and X. How the restriction will be enforced online remains an open question.
In Melbourne on Wednesday. Australia passed a social media ban for children despite feasibility concerns.Credit...William West/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Australia has imposed a sweeping ban on social media for children under 16, one of the world’s most comprehensive measures aimed at safeguarding young people from potential hazards online. But many details were still unclear, such as how it will be enforced and what platforms will be covered.
After sailing through Parliament’s lower house on Wednesday, the bill passed the Senate on Thursday with bipartisan support. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said that it puts Australia at the vanguard of efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of children from detrimental effects of social media, such as online hate or bullying.
The law, he has said, puts the onus on social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent anyone under 16 from having an account. Corporations could be fined up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $32 million) for “systemic” failures to implement age requirements.
Neither underage users nor their parents will face punishment for violations. And whether children find ways to get past the restrictions is beside the point, Mr. Albanese said.
“We know some kids will find workarounds, but we’re sending a message to social media companies to clean up their act,” he said in a statement this month.
As with many countries’ regulations on alcohol or tobacco, the law will create a new category of “age-restricted social media platforms” accessible only to those 16 and older. How that digital carding will happen, though, is a tricky question.
The law specifies that users will not be forced to provide government identification as part of the verification process, a measure that the conservative opposition said was included after they raised concerns about privacy rights.
It is also not clear exactly which platforms will be covered by the ban. The prime minister has said that Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram and X will be included, but YouTube and messaging apps including WhatsApp are expected to be exempt.
France last year passed a law requiring parental consent for social media users under 15, and it has been pushing for similar measures across the European Union. Florida this year imposed a ban for users under 14 and required parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds, but that law could face constitutional challenges.
Leo Puglisi, a 17-year-old Australian teenager who runs a news site, 6 News, that is staffed mostly by teens, said he had full confidence that his 14-year-old brother would easily find a way to circumvent any restriction.
He described social media as an integral part of growing up today. He and his contemporaries are aware that it can cause harm, but they rely on it to find communities of people with similar interests, he said.
A blanket ban would do little to counteract the dangers of the platforms, he said.
“None of the harmful content would be removed. It just kicks the can down the road and throws you into the deep end at 16,” he said. “It might sound good on paper, but in reality it’s not practical.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra this month.Credit...Mick Tsikas/AAP Image, via Reuters
But Dany Elachi, who has five children between the ages of 7 and 15, said the law would help to change the norms around social media usage. Many parents concerned about its harmful effects feel they have no choice but to let their children use it so they don’t feel left out.
“When you think your child might be isolated, that’s what puts parents under a lot of pressure,” said Mr. Elachi, co-founder of the Heads Up Alliance, a network of parents who are trying to delay their children’s use of social media and smartphones. “If everybody misses out, no one misses out.”
Kylea Tink, an independent lawmaker representing North Sydney, criticized the bill in the debate in the lower house on Tuesday as a “blunt instrument.” She said the law would stop short of holding social media companies accountable for the safety of the product they are providing.
“They are not fixing the potholes; they are just telling our kids there won’t be any cars,” she said.
During the same debate, Stephen Bates of the Australian Greens party cited his experience as a 13-year-old addicted to the video game “The Sims.” His father installed a program so his computer would automatically shut down after an hour, he recalled.
“It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to get around that,” said Mr. Bates, now a 32-year-old lawmaker. “As the youngest person in this chamber and one of very, very few people in this place who grew up with this technology and with social media, I can say that change is needed but this bill is not it.”
Now that the law has passed, social media companies have a 12-month period to meet the requirements. The task of sorting out the details of its implementation will fall to Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner.
She said the technologies behind age verification were rapidly advancing, arising from past efforts to limit underage exposure to pornography or gambling sites. A trial commissioned by the Australian government is underway to test them.
In an interview, she said she had no doubt that tech giants would find a way to comply.
“They’ve got financial resources, technologies and some of the best brainpower,” she said. “If they can target you for advertising, they can use the same technology and know-how to identify and verify the age of a child.”
Цитата:
How Australia Will (or Won’t) Keep Children Off Social Media
Critics say big questions remain not only about how the new law will be enforced, but also about whether the ban will really protect young people.
The Australian government has called the legislation a “world leading” move to protect young people online.Credit...David Gray/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Australia has passed a law to prevent children under 16 from creating accounts on social media platforms.
The bill, which the government calls a “world leading” move to protect young people online, was approved in the Senate on Thursday with support from both of the country’s major parties. The lower house of Parliament had passed it earlier in the week.
“This is about protecting young people — not punishing or isolating them,” said Michelle Rowland, Australia’s communications minister. She cited exposure to content about drug abuse, eating disorders and violence as some of the harms children can encounter online.
The legislation has broad support among Australians, and some parental groups have been vocal advocates. But it has faced backlash from an unlikely alliance of tech giants, human rights groups and social media experts.
Critics say there are major unanswered questions about how the law will be enforced, how users’ privacy will be protected and, fundamentally, whether the ban will actually protect children.
What’s in the law?
The law requires social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to verify the age of users and prohibit those under 16 from opening accounts.
It does not specify which platforms the ban will cover — that will be decided later — but the government has named TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram and X as sites it is likely to include.
Three broad categories of platforms will be exempt: messaging apps (like WhatsApp and Facebook’s Messenger Kids); gaming platforms; and services that provide educational content, including YouTube. Those 15 and under will also still be able to access platforms that let users see some content without registering for an account, like TikTok, Facebook and Reddit.
Ms. Rowland, the communications minister, said the restriction on creating accounts, rather than on content more broadly, would mitigate harms associated with online life — like “persistent notifications and alerts” that could affect young people’s sleep and ability to focus — while limiting the law’s effect on the broader population. And supporters of the ban say that delaying children’s exposure to the many pressures of social media would allow them the time to develop a more “secure identity,” while taking pressure off parents to police their children’s online activity.
But digital media experts and some parental groups have said that the patchwork nature of which platforms will and won’t be included in the ban makes it unclear what exactly it is meant to protect children from.
A more effective approach would be to address the problem at its root by requiring social media companies to do a better job of moderating and removing harmful content, said Lisa Given, a professor of information sciences at RMIT University in Melbourne.
The new law “does not protect children against potential harms on social media,” Professor Given said. “In fact, it could create other problems by excluding young people from helpful and useful information, as well as opening up a number of privacy concerns for all Australians.”
How will it be enforced?
That’s not yet entirely clear. The bill states that social media companies must take reasonable steps to assess users’ ages, but the platforms are left to decide how to do that. Those that don’t comply could be fined up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $32 million).
In a measure that was added in response to privacy concerns, the law states that providing a government-issued identity document cannot be the only option social media platforms give users for verifying their age.
Other methods the government has suggested include so-called age assurance technologies, like using a facial scan to determine a user’s approximate age, or estimating it based on online behavior.
Some of those technologies are already being tried. Facebook, for example, is teaching A.I. to estimate users’ ages by looking at things like the birthday messages they receive. The Australian government is conducting its own trial of such tools, and the results will inform how it defines the “reasonable steps” that social media platforms must take.
But Daniel Angus, the director of the Digital Media Research Centre at the Queensland University of Technology, said it was unrealistic for the government to base its law, even in part, on that kind of technology, which is often driven by A.I., largely still in development and in no way foolproof. He added that “there are huge, huge privacy concerns around these, huge tracking concerns. All of this allows, in some way, the ability to track users online.”
What has the response been?
Polls show that the majority of Australians favor the ban. Parental groups have been broadly supportive — although some say the law does not go far enough and should cover more platforms.
Some parents who blame social media for their children’s deaths have been particularly vocal campaigners for a ban, such as Kelly O’Brien, who said that her 12-year-old daughter, Charlotte, died by suicide after experiencing bullying on and off social media.
“Giving our kids these phones, we’re giving them weapons, we’re giving them the world at their fingertips,” Ms. O’Brien told an Australian news outlet.
Social media companies have criticized the law. Elon Musk, the owner of X, said on the platform that it “seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians.”
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, said the proposal “overlooks the practical reality of age assurance technology, as well as the views of a majority of mental health and youth safety organizations in the country.”
(LinkedIn argued that it should not fall within the scope of the ban because, in part, it “simply does not have content interesting and appealing to minors.”)
Some commentators have described the ban as performative. “The primary use of this legislation — let’s not pretend otherwise — is to make it look like our Parliament is taking a stand,” Annabel Crabb, a top journalist at Australia’s national broadcaster, wrote.
Human rights groups have also raised concerns.
_________________
С завистью и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Tech Companies Chide Australia’s Under 16 Social Media Ban
Social media companies say they want to work with the government to promote teen safety.
Big Tech corporations on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law that bans youths under the age of 16 from accessing social media, saying the law was “rushed” through parliament.
Australia approved the social media ban for children late on Thursday. The law forces tech giants from Instagram and Facebook owner Meta to TikTok to stop minors logging in or face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million).
TikTok, the hugely popular platform where teen users upload and share videos, said in a statement to Reuters on Friday that it was likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet.
“Moving forward, it’s critical that the Australian government works closely with industry to fix issues created by this rushed process. We want to work together to keep teens safe and reduce the unintended consequences of this law for all Australians,” it said.
The government had warned Big Tech of its plans for months, and first announced the ban after a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year that heard testimony from parents of children who had self-harmed due to cyber bullying.
Albanese’s Labor party, which does not control the Senate, won crucial support from the opposition conservatives for the bill, allowing it to progress quickly.
The bill was introduced into parliament last Thursday and sent to a select committee on Friday where interested parties had 24 hours to make a submission. The legislation was passed on Thursday as part of 31 bills that were pushed through in a chaotic final day of parliament for the year.
Meta criticised the law saying it was a “predetermined process”.
“Last week, the parliament’s own committee said the ‘causal link with social media appears unclear,’ with respect to the mental health of young Australians, whereas this week the rushed Senate Committee report pronounced that social media caused harm,” it said in a statement in the early hours of Friday.
Snapchat parent Snap said it leaves many questions unanswered.
Australia has been at loggerheads with the mostly U.S.-domiciled tech giants for years. It was the first country to make social media platforms pay media outlets royalties for sharing their content and earlier this year said it plans to threaten them with fines for failing to stamp out scams.
Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group, which has most social media companies as members, said no one can confidently explain how the law will work in practice.
“The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” she said.
A trial of methods to enforce it will start in January with the ban to take effect by Nov. 2025.
Цитата:
Big tech says Australia “rushed” social media ban for youths under 16
The bill was introduced into parliament last Thursday and sent to a select committee on Friday where interested parties had 24 hours to make a submission. The legislation was passed on Thursday as part of 31 bills that were pushed through in a chaotic final day of parliament for the year.
Big Tech corporations on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law that bans youths under the age of 16 from accessing social media, saying the law was “rushed” through parliament.
Australia approved the social media ban for children late on Thursday. The law forces tech giants from Instagram and Facebook owner Meta to TikTok to stop minors logging in or face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million).
TikTok, the hugely popular platform where teen users upload and share videos, said in a statement to Reuters on Friday that it was likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet.
“Moving forward, it’s critical that the Australian government works closely with industry to fix issues created by this rushed process. We want to work together to keep teens safe and reduce the unintended consequences of this law for all Australians,” it said.
The government had warned Big Tech of its plans for months, and first announced the ban after a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year that heard testimony from parents of children who had self-harmed due to cyber bullying.
Albanese’s Labor party, which does not control the Senate, won crucial support from the opposition conservatives for the bill, allowing it to progress quickly.
The bill was introduced into parliament last Thursday and sent to a select committee on Friday where interested parties had 24 hours to make a submission. The legislation was passed on Thursday as part of 31 bills that were pushed through in a chaotic final day of parliament for the year.
Meta criticised the law saying it was a “predetermined process”.
“Last week, the parliament’s own committee said the ‘causal link with social media appears unclear,’ with respect to the mental health of young Australians, whereas this week the rushed Senate Committee report pronounced that social media caused harm,” it said in a statement in the early hours of Friday.
Snapchat parent Snap said it leaves many questions unanswered.
Australia has been at loggerheads with the mostly U.S.-domiciled tech giants for years. It was the first country to make social media platforms pay media outlets royalties for sharing their content and earlier this year said it plans to threaten them with fines for failing to stamp out scams.
Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group, which has most social media companies as members, said no one can confidently explain how the law will work in practice.
“The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” she said.
...
Цитата:
Tech companies put on notice as Australia passes world-first social media ban for under-16s
…
It’s the world’s toughest response yet to a problem that has seen other countries impose restrictions but not hold companies accountable for breaches of a nationwide ban. The ban is expected to apply to Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and X, but that list could expand.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese praised the new law on Friday, saying it sent a message to parents that “we’ve got your back.”
“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them,” he said.
Albanese had previously told parliament there was no time to waste.
“We know that social media can be a weapon for bullies, a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers. And worst of all, a tool for online predators,” he said.
The bill was backed by most members of Australia’s main opposition party, the Liberal Party, with Liberal Sen. Maria Kovacic describing it as a “pivotal moment in our country.”
“We have drawn a line in the sand. The enormous power of big tech can no longer remain unchecked in Australia,” she said Thursday before the vote.
But it met fierce opposition from some independents and smaller parties, including Greens Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young, who accused the major parties of trying to “fool” Australian parents.
“This is a disaster unfolding before our eyes,” she said. “You couldn’t make this stuff up. The prime minister says he’s worried about social media. The leader of the opposition says, ‘Let’s ban it.’
“It’s a race to the bottom to try and pretend who can be the toughest, and all they end up with is pushing young people into further isolation and giving the platforms the opportunity to continue the free-for-all, because now there’s no social responsibility required.
“We need to make social media safer for everybody.”
A rushed process
The government has faced considerable criticism for the speed of the legislation.
Submissions to a Senate committee inquiry into the bill were open for just 24 hours before a three-hour hearing on Monday. The inquiry report was released Tuesday, and the bill passed the lower house on Wednesday – 102 votes to 13 – before progressing to the Senate.
More than 100 submissions were made and “almost all submitters and witnesses expressed grave concerns that a bill of such import was not afforded sufficient time for thorough inquiry and report,” the committee said in its report.
However, the committee recommended that the bill be passed with some changes, including prohibiting the use of government documents, such as passports, to verify users’ age.
Tech companies Meta – the owner of Facebook and Instagram – and TikTok said in statements Friday that they shared the government’s goal of making social media safer for young users but the law had been “rushed.”
“The task now turns to ensuring there is productive consultation on all rules associated with the Bill to ensure a technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens and a commitment that rules will be consistently applied across all social apps used by teens,” a Meta spokesperson said.
Snap Inc., whose messaging app Snapchat is popular with children, said there are still “many unanswered” questions about how the law will be implemented. It had advocated for “device-level age verification … to simplify the process.”
X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, said in its submission to the inquiry that the platform was “not widely used by minors” but expressed concern about the law’s impact on their freedom of expression.
Some experts had argued the legislation could expose children who evade the ban to unrestricted content and deter them from reporting any problems to an adult.
Despite those objections, surveys suggest Australians back the law.
A poll by YouGov conducted this month showed that 77% of Australians support the under-16 ban. The survey was conducted in the second half of this month and sought the views of 1,515 people with a margin of error of 3.2%.
Dany Elachi, co-founder of parent group the Heads Up Alliance, which pushed for the ban, said it didn’t go far enough. “Discord and YouTube Shorts for example are not subject to it – but I look forward to working with lawmakers in the months ahead to ensure the law is as effective as we can possibly make it,” he said.
The government will now engage in broad consultation before setting a switch-off date, when all children under 16 with accounts on social media platforms subject to the ban will have them deactivated.
Parents and children won’t be penalized for flouting the ban, but companies will need to show that they’ve taken reasonable steps to keep under-age users off.
Цитата:
Children and teenagers under 16 to be banned from social media after parliament passes world-first laws
…
Tech companies also agitated for the debate to be delayed until the government's age-verification trial is finalised.
Under the laws, which won't come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s off their platforms.
There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules.
Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.
"Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.
Mixed views from mental health experts
The bill was introduced to parliament last Thursday and was referred for a Senate inquiry the same day. Submissions to the inquiry closed on Friday, a three-hour hearing was held on Monday, and the report was tabled on Tuesday.
Almost all the submissions raised concerns about the "extremely short" consultation period, the committee report noted.
"Legislation is a necessary tool, but it is not a panacea," Labor senator Karen Grogan wrote.
"Young people, and in particular diverse cohorts, must be at the centre of the conversation as an age restriction is implemented to ensure there are constructive pathways for connection."
During the public hearing, witnesses with experience working with young people on their mental health offered a mix of views on the ban.
Danielle Einstein, a clinical psychologist who has supported the campaign to raise the age at which kids can access social media, said social media offered no mental health benefits for young people as far as she could see.
But Nicole Palfrey from mental health organisation Headspace was more circumspect, telling the inquiry there was a need to balance any harms from social media with the benefits of connection and "help-seeking" online — especially for kids who live in remote or rural areas.
"When we hear from psychologists and parents they are very much confronted with [the] pointy end, they only see the harms and I think that's incredibly valid," Lucy Thomas from anti-bullying organisation Project Rockit said.
"But as people working with young people every day, we also see the benefits.
"We need to tread very carefully or we risk dialling back young peoples' rights and pushing them into more isolated, less supported places."
Цитата:
Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s with world-first law
…
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A social media ban for children under 16 passed the Australian Parliament on Friday in a world-first law.
The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts.
The Senate passed the bill on Thursday 34 votes to 19. The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the legislation by 102 votes to 13.
The House on Friday endorsed opposition amendments made in the Senate, making the bill law.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the law supported parents concerned by online harms to their children.
“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them,” Albanese told reporters.
The platforms have one year to work out how they could implement the ban before penalties are enforced.
Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said the legislation had been “rushed.”
Digital Industry Group Inc., an advocate for the platforms in Australia, said questions remain about the law’s impact on children, its technical foundations and scope.
Related Stories
“The social media ban legislation has been released and passed within a week and, as a result, no one can confidently explain how it will work in practice – the community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said.
The amendments passed on Friday bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.
Critics of the legislation fear that banning young children from social media will impact the privacy of all users who must establish they are older than 16.
While the major parties support the ban, many child welfare and mental health advocates are concerned about unintended consequences.
Sen. David Shoebridge, from the minority Greens party, said mental health experts agreed that the ban could dangerously isolate many children who used social media to find support.
“This policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” Shoebridge told the Senate.
Exemptions will apply for health and education services including YouTube, Messenger Kids, WhatsApp, Kids Helpline and Google Classroom.
Opposition Sen. Maria Kovacic said the bill was not radical but necessary. “The core focus of this legislation is simple: It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms,” Kovacic told the Senate.
“This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but for too long they have shirked these responsibilities in favor of profit,” she added.
Online safety campaigner Sonya Ryan, whose 15-year-old daughter Carly was murdered by a 50-year-old pedophile who pretended to be a teenager online, described the Senate vote as a “monumental moment in protecting our children from horrendous harms online.”
“It’s too late for my daughter, Carly, and the many other children who have suffered terribly and those who have lost their lives in Australia, but let us stand together on their behalf and embrace this together,” she said.
Wayne Holdsworth, whose teenage son Mac took his own life after falling victim to an online sextortion scam, had advocated for the age restriction and took pride in its passage.
“I have always been a proud Australian, but for me subsequent to today’s Senate decision, I am bursting with pride,” Holdsworth said.
Christopher Stone, executive director of Suicide Prevention Australia, the governing body for the suicide prevention sector, said the legislation failed to consider positive aspects of social media in supporting young people’s mental health and sense of connection.
“The government is running blindfolded into a brick wall by rushing this legislation. Young Australians deserve evidence-based policies, not decisions made in haste,” Stone said.
The platforms had complained that the law would be unworkable and had urged the Senate to delay the vote until at least June 2025 when a government-commissioned evaluation of age assurance technologies will report on how young children could be excluded.
“Naturally, we respect the laws decided by the Australian Parliament,” Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms said. “However, we are concerned about the process which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”
Snapchat said it was also concerned by the law and would cooperate with the government regulator, the eSafety Commissioner.
“While there are many unanswered questions about how this law will be implemented in practice, we will engage closely with the Government and the eSafety Commissioner during the 12-month implementation period to help develop an approach that balances privacy, safety and practicality. As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” Snapchat said in a statement.
Critics argue the government is attempting to convince parents it is protecting their children ahead of a general election due by May. The government hopes that voters will reward it for responding to parents’ concerns about their children’s addiction to social media. Some argue the legislation could cause more harm than it prevents.
Criticisms include that the legislation was rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny, is ineffective, poses privacy risks for all users, and undermines the authority of parents to make decisions for their children.
Opponents also argue the ban would isolate children, deprive them of the positive aspects of social media, drive them to the dark web, discourage children too young for social media to report harm, and reduce incentives for platforms to improve online safety.
_________________
С завистью и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Только что
это предложение в соседней теме «Фанаты и Жизнь».
В качестве комментария к этой идеи использовал материал Георгия Бовта от 29 редкого февраля этого года.
И в этом материале есть такой фрагмет:
Цитата:
«Можете представить себе, тридцать пять тысяч одних курьеров!» Комментарий Георгия Бовта.
В России сейчас работают более 1 млн курьеров, и компании все равно жалуются на их нехватку. Дефицит к концу этого года, вероятнее всего, достигнет 300 тысяч работников. Почему курьер стал одной из самых востребованных профессий и что этот факт говорит о структуре российской экономики, разбирался Георгий Бовт.
Людям старой формации трудно понять, как это так случилось с нашей экономикой, что курьер без образования, разъезжающий на велосипеде по мегаполису, зарабатывает деньги, сопоставимые с зарплатой учителя, и побольше иного научного работника? Как так получилось, что людям лень выйти из дома, чтобы купить себе еду, и они привыкли, не вставая с дивана, заказывать завтрак с курьерской доставкой? То есть буквально в постель. Как так получилось, что вся экономика страдает от нехватки кадров, но при этом в такой экономике возможна армия курьеров, количество рабочих мест в которой примерно равно как раз численности всей армии России?
…
Иначе, розница доведённая до абсурда.
Как Вы помните, до 1740 года в России вообще не было и не могло быть никаких легальных розничных магазинов!
То есть, всей легальной розничной торговле в России, всего 284 года!
В России, до 1740-х годов, продавать товары по месту жительства было запрещено.
За попытку розничной торговли полагались кнут и Сибирь.
И не по тому, что мы «убогие», а по тому, что традиционными формами торговли в России всегда были ярмарки, рынки, базары.
То есть, торг в России, всегда был публичен.
Взять тот же Гостиный ряд.
В лавках не торговали в розницу.
Боже упаси!
В лавках торговали по образцам.
Покупатель в лавке только выбирал образец и расплачивался, а уж после того шёл с приказчиком к амбарам и получал товар из кладовой.
Розница же вся творилась на рынках, базарах и ярмарках.
…
С приходом импортной розничной торговли при Елизавете Петровне, национальные формы торговли стали потихоньку вымирать.
Покупателя последовательно и настойчиво выводили из публичного общественного торгового пространства.
Розничные магазины по месту жительства поглотили рынки.
Розничные и мелкооптовые сети поглотили магазины.
Интернет поглощает розничные и мелкооптовые сети.
Дробление акта розничной продажи стали личным делом каждого упакованного изолированного одинокого покупателя.
С точки зрения традиционных видов торговли в России, россиянам это ни просто ни к чему, россиянам это общественно-опасно.
По тому, что рыночная, ярмарочная, базарная торговля не просто специфический формат торговли Систем ИСО>ЕСО, но живая информационная среда играющая важнейшую роль в синтезе, обслуживании, утилизации социокультурного и политэкономического обмена страны.
Поэтому, если Россия хочет вернуть себе былую мощь, надо потихоньку подобные либеральные форматы торговли прикручивать. Россиянам с либеральными форматами розничной торговли не по пути.
_________________
С надеждой и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Уровень доступа: Вы не можете начинать темы, Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения, Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения, Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения, Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
Антитрендами наружной рекламы в текущем году стали прямолинейность и чрезмерная перегруженность сообщений. Наружная реклама продолжает показывать рост: число рекламных конструкций за последний год увеличилось более чем на 2 тысячи.
В компании Sellty спрогнозировали развитие рынка электронной коммерции в сегменте СМБ на ближайший год. По оценке основателя Sellty Марии Бар-Бирюковой, число собственных интернет-магазинов среднего, малого и микробизнеса продолжит расти и увеличится минимум на 40% до конца 2025 года. Компании будут и дальше развиваться на маркетплейсах, но станут чаще комбинировать несколько каналов продаж.
10 сентября – Всемирный день психического здоровья. Специально к этой дате компания HINT опросила коллег в сфере маркетинга, рекламы и пиара, чтобы понять, как представители этих профессий могут помочь себе и другим поддержать в норме психическое здоровье.
Как не ошибиться с выбором формата обучения и предстать перед будущим работодателем успешным специалистом. Директор по маркетингу ведущего IT-холдинга Fplus Ирина Васильева рассказала, на что теперь смотрят работодатели при приеме на работу, как нестандартно можно развиваться в профессии и стоит ли действующим маркетологам обучаться на онлайн-курсах.
Эксперты ЮKassa (сервис для приёма онлайн- и офлайн-платежей финтех-компании ЮMoney) и RetailCRM (решение для управления заказами и клиентскими данными) провели исследование* и выяснили, почему пользователи не завершают покупки в интернет-магазинах. По данным опроса, две трети респондентов хотя бы раз оставляли заказы незавершёнными, чаще всего это электроника и бытовая техника, одежда и товары для ремонта. Вернуться к брошенным корзинам многих мотивируют скидки, кэшбэк и промокоды.
Чего не хватает радио, чтобы увеличить свою долю на рекламном рынке? Аудиопиратство: угроза или возможности для отрасли? Каковы первые результаты общероссийской кампании по продвижению индустриального радиоплеера? Эти и другие вопросы были рассмотрены на конференции «Радио в глобальной медиаконкуренции», спикерами и участниками которой стали эксперты ГПМ Радио.
Деловая программа 28-й международной специализированной выставки технологий и услуг для производителей и заказчиков рекламы «Реклама-2021» открылась десятым юбилейным форумом «Матрица рекламы». Его организовали КВК «Империя» и «Экспоцентр».
28 марта в Центральном доме художника состоялась 25-ая выставка маркетинговых коммуникаций «Дизайн и реклама NEXT». Одним из самых ярких её событий стал День социальной рекламы, который организовала Ассоциация директоров по коммуникациям и корпоративным медиа России (АКМР) совместно с АНО «Лаборатория социальной рекламы» и оргкомитетом LIME.
На VII Международном форуме «Матрица рекламы», прошедшем в ЦВК «Экспоцентр» в рамках международной выставки «Реклама-2018», большой интерес у профессиональной аудитории вызвала VI Конференция «Интернет-реклама».
RSS