There's been a few surveys, some better than others ... but the reality is they don't matter that much. The ban was just another way to skin a cat - that cat in particular were the algorithms that were targeting specifically young kids which the public became alarmed about - iirc making the news on and off late 10s.

Social media needs not strive to ban every under 16 child ... but they surely will now be careful not to deploy those specific algorithms the public had complained about especially in regard to some of the harms it was said to be doing.

Using social media under 16 could be considered like driving without a licence ... and not too many under 16 children in Australia have a licence to drive on the roads - but in rural and remote areas, on those that are relatively safe roads, a number do, with or without their parents knowledge. Many years prior to the ban, social media could be considered to be vehicle rental companies which never saw any issue with hiring out faster and faster racing stock cars and motorbikes to kids ... and later when accidents happened, asked to perhaps be more mindful. Social media companies shrugged and said too hard. Now there is a ban [1] for under 16s, yes many children are going to still do it, but now, though it's technically against the law, some parents will evaluate their child is capable enough. The ban effectively ensures social media will need to be sure to rent out safe vehicles just in case because if there is a bad accident that an under 16 wouldn't be expected to avoid, mandatory consequences now apply. Social media companies are very well aware of this fact. They don't like it and as such running numerous campaigns - more often threatening in a roundabout between the lines manner that the only way for them to enforce a ban is to go down the road many folks fear, being all out full identification required to create / keep an account with them.

[1] Those parents who've wanted to pry their kids fingers from the phone that only visits social media areas, can finally put their foot down hard telling their kids no way until they are older when it's legal, and not have to put up with any bargaining when they lock down the wifi.

worked for me

Well if one assumes "Never attribute to malice..." for a moment here, it's quite understandable that they'd like to kill 3 birds with one stone, and one would agree that having ways to fight against pedos and mafias is actually helping with one of the "mission statements" of most states.

However, laws are a delicate matter, especially those that have to limit some rights to guarantee others (here privacy and security). Making distinct laws for children protection and against online activities related to crime certainly should allow more fine tuning of each framework.

How many cigarettes did you smoke per day as a teen? Would you smoke more or less if you could do it anywhere anytime?

That's what I meant... good parenting aside, I would wager the vast majority still need a way to get blocked because the parents aren't going to do it. As a country, that's what they're struggling with, and what I was asking for a better solution for.

We're at the point now at least in the US where pre-teens already have (secured) starter credit cards they got from a joint account with their parents and can now order anything online they want. And don't forget, companies automatically assume valid credit card = over 18.

I don't understand what you're trying to say sorry.

if i’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, it sounds like you think parental involvement is a) lacking, and b) would be effective in its own. i’m not sure either of those holds true.

it takes a village, even with fantastic family life, and these companies are trying to tell us they’re exempt from the village yet they still want to be part of it. this is how we got here to the government (us, the people) taking it to the next step.

had these companies done the correct thing and acknowledged their responsibilities as members of the village, other solutions may have been found. they have no one but themselves (and their cultists incessant defense of them) to blame.

in the real world, good kids from good families in good areas fall too. it’s naive to an extreme to believe those alone are enough.

I know! How about new technology that "automates" stuff, letting them pay us lower wages to work more hours (if we're lucky to keep a job)? Maybe it should even be trained on our work

Reducing bulling isn't the primary goal with this kind of thing, more a secondary benefit.

Did you know that heroin (at the time, that was a registered trademark) was originally sold as a "non-addictive morphine substitute" to be used as cough suppressant?

People weren't at all sure how to even regulate substances in the early years of the 20th century, which is why when the US got Prohibition it was via a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law, even though they already knew about drugs laws and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act predated Prohibition by about 5 years.

Right now, we're not sure how to even regulate social media.

They're not stopping anyone from physically talking to you(what's important).

They're stopping you/others from sending DM's/Tags/Meme's(what isn't important).

Everyone wanted to smoke. And then less people did. And the nobody did, apart from the ones who were already addicted. How do you attribute that?

No one is expecting all the kids to quit social media. Just that less kids will use it and they'll use it less. And more kids won't use it at all.

You can ban smoking but you also have to fine the tobacco companies and smoking will drastically reduce.

You can’t ban something without severe consequences for the producers and just hope the consumer will follow the ban.

I think it is a human right that I decide for myself what is good for me and what is bad for me. I have for example Instagram and Facebook, but only to look what kind of Magic the Gathering Events are at the weekend, do I look at reels and doom scroll? No. So I would not say I am addicted despite having a smartphone.

Technology is in most of the cases not bad, and their use can enrich lives.

Considering it's how many people engage in speech, yes.

And why not the one 1895? Some people seem to prefer this as well, but you perhaps would not like it.

If you prefer living without a smartphone its completly up to you and I would always stand for your right to not have one, but on the other side I am also standing for the right to have one if someone desires one.

That's not what the law requires

Huh. I mean, that's interesting (that legacy media lobbied for the ban). So but Murdoch doesn't own Reddit, what's the upshot there? More links to Sky/Fox?

hah. As far as my girlfriend knows, it's dedicated only to cats and people behaving badly at Walmart.

And here I just called it more intelligent, lol. I should qualify that. I've seen her instagram feed too, and somehow it's even more absurd...

if it’s “also” a porn website then it’s not “dedicated”.