> So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other?
Kids are not banned from communicating and posting with each other; the ban exempts a number of direct messing apps, as well as community apps like Discord:
If I had to over-simplify it, then the ban appears to mostly target doom-scrolling apps. I say mostly, since I'm not sure why Twitch and Kick are included
> The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful.
True, but let me remind you that we didn't have conclusive data on smoke harm until the 50s, but this doesn't mean that smoking was not harmful before, nor that we were lacking any clue before coming to a conclusive study.
At the moment we don't have any conclusive study about e-cigarettes, but I'm sure you would never give kids e-cigarettes just because we don't have 30/40 years worth of data.
> This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children"
This is a bit more complex than this. Kids and adolescents online are targeted with all sort of techniques to leverage their attention in order to make money. I understand the speech control worry, and I agree up to a certain point, but I don't see how ignoring the problem makes it any better. What are the alternatives we have? I'm genuinely asking, not advocating for TINA. I have two kids and I see the effects of social media on them and on their friends.
Keep in mind that this cannot be offloaded to families, for multiple reasons:
- many family just don't have enough data or knowledge to make informed decisions
- until the network effect is in place, banning your kid from social media while all of their friend are online can be impractical and cruel
- parent decisions can affect kids health and overall society outcome; allowing a wrong decision by the parents (because the society doesn't want to handle the problem) would be unfair for the kids and no wise for the society.
As in many aspects of life the best solution is neither white nor black, but a shade of grey, and is far from being perfect. Looking for a perfect solution is a waste of time, resources and unfair for those that are affected in the meanwhile.
I understand the concerns, and probably Australia approach is not the best, but it's also the first. We probably will need a period of adjustments to reach a sound solution.
The only specific example from that nypost article is about Fox News not being allowed as a source. Fox news has been found in court to be guilty of defamation and has argued in court that it cannot be considered news, only entertainment.
So do you want reality or reality TV on Wikipedia? Should we consider Ancient Aliens as a source?
I don't disagree that Fox News is problematic for lots of reasons and I also have personal grievances with how they and similar outlets have affected several members of my family. That said, it's become folk knowledge that Fox News doesn't even think they're news, but that's simply a misunderstanding of the case. There's a tiny bit of irony that there are those who are patting themselves on the back for being above misinformation and getting this important detail wrong.
I've seen the actual news that comes from them and while it's certainly biased rightward, particularly in what they choose to report on, it's not outrageously so.
It takes an incredible lack of awareness or intellectual honesty to hold Fox news to this standard, but not CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, or, if we include print media, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Reuters, AP, Axios, LA Times, and the Atlantic.
You're not trying very hard to see a side that's different from yours, are you? You are responding to a comment saying "leftist != realistic", yet you seem to be pretending my intent was to say "here's proof Wikipedia is left-leaning." Neither of my links were given to "prove" bias, either, only to show that accusations of leftwing bias are accusations that Wikipedia is valuing propaganda over truth and objectivity.
Anyways, to get off-topic from my original comment, here's some evidence for you to ignore:
It's always a warning sign where the only thing I know about a CEO is how many podcasts and media events they do each week, and nothing about their business.
Copyrights are owned by corporations as a result of either:
(1) actual human authorship and original ownership, sold to a corporation, or
(2) actual human authorship as a work for hire on behalf of the corporation, which is a special case specifically laid out in copyright law which allows someone other than the person performing the actual act of authorship to be the original copyright owner.
The sad part is sometimes just switching languages/locales on your phone (i.e. changing the language from US English to British English) fixes this as it's all the code checks.
That's because the servers that are left are filled with die-hard players that know the maps, and every little quirk about the gameplay to the pixel level... There still a lot of fun in there, some mini games, more esoteric modes, deathmatch... The other characteristic of many server is that they are modded to the gills, and in some cases the work that has been done on the game over the years ends up giving some very pleasant surprises...
I logged in about 120 hours in 2024 after not playing for 12 years, and everything was different and the same. You got a lot of 30-something's playing after office hours, keeping the servers alive, and like I said, some servers are at a completely different level, I had so much laughs and met quite a few new people...
I recommend to look a bit more and I'm sure you'll find a few servers to stick around to, even if you get headshotted by an AWP from across the map on each round.
The Economist has value because any prediction they make is 180 degree off what will happen, they're like a delusional oracle, but they still have the gift of prophecy. Jacobin though is just a case of "by embittered leftists, for embittered leftists" and there's no point engaging with it.
If it's about monetizing child attention not about speech control why isn't every single toy ad, food ad, movie ad, also banned?