facthunter Posted November 23 Posted November 23 You haven't been watching what has been going on. The Greens and the LNP voting against the Gov't have BLOCKED a lot of legislation that would have helped the People MORE. Playing politics means the People suffer. Like I've said. Dutton is copying Trump. WE haven't been shamed by our overseas involvement. Thats part of what a PM HAS to do.. Look at the unholy fight Scotty from marketing HAD with Macron which was personal and caused by Morrisson's behaviour, (deception) re the Submarines. Nev 2
willedoo Posted November 23 Posted November 23 I wonder if the Greens have reached their peak support. I don't know about other states but in Queensland they sit around the same support percentages as One Nation. More of a fringe dweller that a serious contender for government. I think their biggest achievement would be balance of power in the Senate. 1
facthunter Posted November 23 Posted November 23 Usually their policies beyond Save the Trees become "All Over the Place and create serious dissention and personal animosity. . They can GO Hard for ANYTHING Knowing they won't be a Government that has to behave like one.. The "Feeling of POWER" is hard to resist. . Fun stirring but you have to think of the consequences of the Negativity of don't back it unless you get ALL of what you ask for... Nev 1 1
willedoo Posted November 24 Posted November 24 The government's fake news bill has failed to get up. Probably a good thing as it's getting into dangerous territory when a government decides what news we should or should not read. That's better left for the people themselves to decide. With misinformation or disinformation it's hard to draw the line. As an example, how many times do you see people quote Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia articles are written by members who create a Wiki account and write an article. Before publishing, it's peer reviewed to an extent but the main requirement is to quote sources. Any controversial statements made in a Wikipedia article are only as good as the sources they quote. Often those quoted sources are an article written by a journalist. And guess what, journalists protect their sources by not identifying them. How many so called news articles do you see the quote "according to two persons familiar with the matter". The journalist could be full of shite or not, but either way for a Wiki article to be credible there has to be some validation of the sources quoted as sources, and so on down the line. https://www.9news.com.au/national/labor-abandons-misinformation-bill/36c70cf4-16ee-4c9c-bbb2-972879968e84 1
facthunter Posted November 24 Posted November 24 I think it's about on line bullying and young people taking their lives. Nev 1
willedoo Posted November 24 Posted November 24 29 minutes ago, facthunter said: I think it's about on line bullying and young people taking their lives. Nev Different bill Nev. You're thinking of the social media age restriction bill. 1 1
spacesailor Posted November 24 Posted November 24 Some of my G.grandies will be hit as they ' are ' members of clubs , on that FB . Whether it's footy . Pony club , shooter's . And the " minibike " club . All on FB . As are the parents and distant family & friends. So the mother's on fb with 11 yo standing beside her . ' if he says anything ' . with that government ban , all the Australians will be fined , But not Those overseas criminals. ( tongue in cheek ) spacesailor 1
facthunter Posted November 24 Posted November 24 You aren't becoming a Whingeing POM are you? Name the Country you'd be more desirous of living in.. Nev 1 1
nomadpete Posted November 24 Posted November 24 Is this bill coming from copying DJT's claim that he's going to protect women whether they like it or not? The Australian government is going to protect us whether we like it or not? Sounds like a hastily invented bill that should not be rushed through at the last sitting moment. 2
red750 Posted November 24 Posted November 24 Here's a report on one such suicide. On the night of her death a friend of Charlotte's had told her parents that she was distressed and upset about the latest cyber bullying she had endured. Mr Howard did not reveal exactly what they were told but said that it contained 'some of the worst words that anybody should have to read, let alone a 12-year-old girl'. Cyber bullying has been skyrocket since the introduction of smart phones and new data has confirmed just how stark the rise has been. Before the first iPhone was introduced Australia recorded 55 young people who committed suicide in 2006. In recent generations however, those numbers have almost doubled. There were 100 cases of children who committed suicide in 2020 and reports of self-harm are also increasing in frequency. Some estimates suggest that for every one child who commits suicide there may be as many as 200 others who attempt to. 3
willedoo Posted November 24 Posted November 24 The way they're trying to rush all these bills through in the last week with an election just around the corner is a bit like stuffing your wet clothes off the clothesline in a bag and trying to make it to the airport on time. 3
red750 Posted November 24 Posted November 24 Well one thing has been canned. The proposal to fine social media firms 5% of their annual turnover for publishing false news. Elon has won. Age limit on accounts is still on the table. The reason for cancelling was because the LNP and Greens did not believe it was the governments duty to decide what is true or false. 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted November 24 Posted November 24 Hmm.. would have thought facts would decide if published items were false or not 1
nomadpete Posted November 24 Posted November 24 1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said: Hmm.. would have thought facts would decide if published items were false or not Great. Whose facts? What about alternative facts? Who would fund the 'official' factchecking department? Rather a can of worms, I think. 2
spacesailor Posted November 24 Posted November 24 Talking of " overseas " media, My mother in NZ had problems with an ' upstart ' ham radio operator. So I rang for an inspector, who on arrival told us " nothing could be done as the neighbour had covered all bases . I promptly rang ' bro'inlaw ' in Sydney. Then handed the phone to the Inspector, who was told, that ham was " audible " on the phone in Australia . The inspector went next-door & promptly shut him down, then ripped up his licence. spacesailor PS. : I tried getting my ticket .so knew I couldn't talk Over the Telstra phone system . I used a very big ' yaggi ' antenna .
spacesailor Posted November 25 Posted November 25 The neighbour had checked everything to stop being banned from his hobby. He missed the one-thing, I had run foul of while in radio procedure traing . spacesailor 2
Popular Post old man emu Posted November 25 Popular Post Posted November 25 On 23/11/2024 at 10:09 AM, red750 said: Willie, what they want to stop is the online bullying of young kids, driving them to take their own lives. I have two grandsons 12 and 13. I was discussing this very topic with my son and daughter-in-law last night. What I learned from that conversation was that we have to look at the use of social media through the eyes of our youngsters, not our eyes. What is needed is not the banning of social media platforms, but acknowledgement that our kids live in a digital age and social media platforms are part and parcel of that age. Quite simply we have to do what our parents did for us and what we did for our kids: help them identify Right and Wrong and empower them to have the strength of character to tell those of their associates who are doing the Wrong thing to cut it out. My son gave me some examples involving one of my grandson, and he either came to them for advice when he was the subject, or for advice on how to handle a situation when it was a friend of his who was the target. I was amazed that this grandson sought advice, because he's not a goody-two-shoes, just an average kid. It is said that a big problem with pre-teens and young teens these days is that they have been mollycoddled and have not been allowed engage in low level risky behaviour to learn how to handle pain, disappointment etc. Most of us experienced the cuts and bruises from play accidents. What didn't kill us, strengthened us. Today's kids get their cuts and bruises from a type of play we cannot fully comprehend, but they still get them. Our job is to be there to apply Band-Aids as necessary to wounded psyches. So, "NO!" to banning kids from social media. Say "YES!" to providing advice and guidance in handling. And like a lot of stuff, the Media has latched on to a topic and blown it way out of proportion. According to my son's oversight of the boys' online activities, he suggests that the bad stuff is overwhelmed by the dumb stuff, with a bit of normal interactions making up the rest. 4 1
willedoo Posted November 25 Posted November 25 That's a very good summation of the issues, ome. None of the critics of the bill (and there are many) are denying that something needs to be done. What they are saying is that the government's legislation is a poorly thought out blunt instrument approach. Surely there must be a better way than a blanket ban. It's sort of like if a motorist runs over a pedestrian. Do you ban pedestrians or do you ban motorists or just ban both. That way nobody gets run over. Or do you put more thought into it and find some other way. I can understand how older people who are not familiar with the huge part social media plays in young people's lives would think a total ban is a great idea. But they are looking at it from a viewpoint that is only partly informed. I guess some people think all social media is to kids is a format to chat with each other, but it's much bigger than that. Things like TikTok and Instagram for example are used by talented kids to launch their music careers. Young people trying to make a career in the arts use social media to promote themselves in the same way it's used by adults to build a career. You can understand how they and their parents feel about this sledgehammer of a bill. It's effectively career ending for some young people. 2
red750 Posted November 25 Posted November 25 It's not like they are banning it up to the age of 21. But there are some kids who have access who are barely out of nappies. They believe everything they see on the screen. Kids under sixteen who commit crimes like housebreaking and car stealing, and they go through a revolving door in the courts, only to do it again and again. But, OH! Good heavens, we can't punish them, their just kids. They are too young to know that they are ruining their lives -won't be able to get a job, won't be admitted to other countries if they want to travel. They have to be taught what is good for them and what is not. Ten minutes in the naughty corner doesn't cut it. The same with access to social media before they are 16. They are not mature enough to know right from wrong. This is where they get a lot of their misdeeds from. 2
old man emu Posted November 25 Posted November 25 8 hours ago, willedoo said: I can understand how older people who are not familiar with the huge part social media plays in young people's lives would think a total ban is a great idea. That's the point my son made to me, without alleging the I was a silly old fart. Older people don't try to apply what they did as kids to what they would like to see their kids/grandkids do. Older people do not comprehend that it is a vastly different world for the kids, but the acceptable behaviours towards others are ageless. It is the way that those behaviours are taught and applied in a digital world that is what should be addressed. He and the DIL have access to the boys' social media accounts and can see what is going on. The DIL is an Early Childhood Educator qualified in child development, and my son knows how to operate in the social media world. As well, they are both very involved in supporting the boys in their education and extracurricular activities. I would accept their opinions regarding the use of social media over those of a 50+-years old politician, as well as all those of parents who don't have the experiences in education and social media that my son and DIL have. When I asked why the boys and their mates weren't getting out and about after school with their mates, the reply was that; 1. There are no suitable open spaces in their suburb 2. There is a council-built BMX track just down the road, but adults shoo kids away from such facilities because 'they might do damage to it'. 3. The boys come home and, after doing their chores, they connect with friends digitally and can talk and play computer games through the internet. 2
facthunter Posted November 25 Posted November 25 The Greens have caved in after holding up stuff for ages. Dutton Opposes everything as he thinks it makes him LOOK tough. Lot's of STUNTS. Not any actual details of ANYTHING. Just stop Labor passing needed legislation that would help the People, and then claim they are doing nothing. ALL cheered on, or orchestrated by Murdoch. Nev 1 1
nomadpete Posted November 25 Posted November 25 My summary - Yes, aorta do sumfin abart et! You can't legislate common sense, but it can be taught. Legislation hampers everyone, but always opens other doors for those intent on causing harm. Should we ban telephones next, to stop the harm caused by scammers? 1 1
facthunter Posted November 25 Posted November 25 IF you were given the Job to do something about it, what would you do.?. Everything good is corrupted to do harm to People IF there's some benefit/pleasure for the perpetrators.. You cant drive a defective vehicle or drive if you are intoxicated. YOU have to have Legislation. Nev
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now