Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Idiotic’: Social media ban will have ‘grim’ impacts on all Australians" video.

@guyfanno1 No child has any right to any sort of free speech. All Australians as a result have a certain level of freedom speech as derived from English common law. Happy for a Bill of rights to be inserted into the constitution anytime.
4
A more ridiculously nonsensical idiotic stupid comment I have never heard, calling the Liberal party socialist. Hilarious.
2
Yes he gave it at much thought as the referendum on the voice
2
no 8 year old has a constitutional right to free speech.
2
@victoriajennings9908 No you don't. In Australia you have a certain level of freedom of speech as derived from English common law, this freedom is restricted by defamation laws. Freedom of speech is a human construct, it is merely a legislated luxury.
2
Along with 7% of the population, good luck with that.
2
@SoloMan001 You have my total agreement there.
2
What you can’t pickup a phone and speak to them face to face, either directly or on FaceTime using their parents phone? I chat with my grandchildren regularly and have never used social media.
1
@kermitthehermit9588 I knew and loved 3 of my grandparents my mother's father died from kidney failure in the early 60s (I suspect from the abuse of alcohol and pain killers) he had been wounded twice during WWI. All my grandparents were deeply flawed individuals and I have a significantly different relationship with my grandchildren that would be completely unrecognisable to even my parents. All my grandparents and parents would be proud of the the confident and intelligent children that guide and in the future will be responsible for this wonderful country. Perhaps you should emigrate.
1
And your evidence of a hell is?
1
@guyfanno1 Are you implying a 16 year old is an adult?
1
@turnyourbacktoit So your argument is because a child can access pornograghy they should be able to access anything. Weird view but you are entitled to it.
1
@victoriajennings9908 Freedom of thought is undeniable and can't be legislated against, however once you express that thought then there is always a cost.
1
@EL-FUKKO Denying children access to mobile phones seems unnecessarily harsh to me. Being able to contact your parents or the emergency services seems to me a far safer option. Restrictions on what can be accessed on that phone seems to me a more practical choice.
1
@jaxia-eu6jf Yes at 16, I have no problem with that. In the vast majority of western democracies 18 is the lowest voting age and some do go to 16, and again all this law does is prevent access to harmful social media till a child is 16, when they can learn to drive, and in some countries vote. Do you what to lower the age a child can learn to drive?
1
@EL-FUKKO I understand that is your opinion. The data however doesn't support this view.
1
@EL-FUKKO I have absolutely no objections whatsoever to a "Bill of rights" being inserted into the constitution. However the indigenous people of Australia couldn't even just get an opinion inserted into the constitution. For you to suggest Australia could get a bill of rights inserted into the constitution puts you into fantasy land. I admire your optimism.
1
@Lo.0se You misunderstand free speech. No speech is cost free. If you claim the earth is flat then the cost to you is everybody understands you are a goose. Consequently when Hanson clearly expresses a racist viewpoint (which she regularly does) i have no problem with that, but the cost to her is i will call her a racist (which i can back with data). This is just factual reality. I think what you think is free speech is the ability to just say whatever hateful, racist, sexist, misogynist, and bigoted claim and expect no cost to you personally. That's not how society works.
1
@turnyourbacktoit Nope children shouldn't be able to access pornograghy either, I never suggested they should be.
1
@turnyourbacktoit Children are literally killing themselves because of the bullying subjected to them on social media. I have no problems then with some controls placed on those social media products. No child should have any access at all to pornograghy (in my opinion). These are to me reasonable controls to educate our children.
1
@Lo.0se The concept was throughly defeated at a referendum. Australians didn’t want indigenous people to have an opinion.
1
@skeletalfluorosis4you Yes I agree it is anecdotal. The parents of these children appealed directly to the Federal politicians to legislate change. As i understand it YouTube for children will still be accessible. Yes there will be a cost, i suspect a failed opportunity to learn the piano will be offset by the gain of a 12 year old girl having the chance to go on to actually becoming a music teacher.
1
@Lo.0se Your opinion is in direct opposition to the data. In one specific incident a suicide note explicitly blamed social media for that individuals death. Your opinion is literally worthless. Numerous studies exist on the harmful effects of social media on children.
1
@Lo.0se In May 2023 the US surgeon General issued a major public advisory over the links between social media and youth mental health. The Dove self-esteem project April 2023, exposed the toxic beauty content on social media and impacts on mental health.
1
@Lo.0se Yes, I understand your opinion is it is entirely the parents fault and I'm telling you the independent data proves your opinion is wrong. There is no doubt parenting is vital in the well being of a child. Hypothetically if the parents are solely responsible in your opinion for a child's suicide are they also solely responsible if a child commits a murder?
1
Yeah let’s just let 13 year old girls kill themselves after being bullied, a much better result.
1
@deanhall6045 And exactly who will they be contacting?
1
@deanhall6045 So despite legislation and significant fines you just assume all children will be able the bypass the precautions social media companies will be forced to introduce. Just checking. Got it.
1
Oh yeah no hyperbole there at all , just reasonable balanced comment.
1
I’m not sure you even have the remotest clue about technology.
1
@stevesmith9151 Facebook and X regularly cleanse their platforms of dodgy accounts. It can be policed and just claiming it’s too hard is merely a defeatist attitude. Perhaps you should devote some of your expertise to protecting our children.
1
Along with the 7% of Australians, what exactly will that achieve?
1
@lancebarnes3970 Australia is a democracy. I can list for you the literally hundreds of political party’s that currently exist let alone the hundreds that have come and gone, just because only a few actually offer practical solutions and therefore attract the majority of commonsense voters isn’t my fault. One Notion have been around for 30 years and have never received more than 10% of the national vote. One time in Queensland they got 17% and immediately fell apart into a rabble. Once Hanson is gone that will be the end of One Notion. No doubt some other far right party will emerge but they will always be on the fringes.
1
@lancebarnes3970 And you most certainly are. My comment isn’t an opinion, merely an observation. I’m not sure what voting for a far right party will achieve, as would voting for a far left party. The Greens have achieved a level of electoral success twice that of One Notion. If you are a conservative then to me sticking with the Liberal or National parties seems to be a far more effective way of imparting change. One Notion are a rabble, full of racists, xenophobes, and economic illiterates. At every stage when they seem to have it sorted they immediately fall apart. This isn’t opinion merely historical fact. You are of course free to choose whatever, but it is a hell of a gamble.
1
@SoloMan001 Yep no doubt they will. Far right parties have a solid history in Australian politics and all up combined might manage a total of 10 to 12%. They all end up self destructing in a blaze of infighting as One Notion always does.
1