NoPicklez

That's right. Further the SBS was introduced to allow more ethnic broadcasting of content not in English following the war in around 1970.

Not a bad approach

Yet I can watch the world cup and the tour de france for free in Australia from SBS on TV and streamed online.

So much greediness

It could be, but it also might not be?

Most things have second order effects, having a consistent sleep schedule may allow more healthier second order effects based on a more regular sleep pattern than duration. Duration also doesn't mean quality either.

Well in another example, I might put my arm out of the window and feel the wind moving fast on my arm and wrongly assume my car is going fast when it is simply windy and I am stationary.

People don't actually think that's the case. However it is obviously an age in which we believe kids can start to have more agency over their own lives and make bigger decisions because they have matured (hopefully) enough to do so.

We therefore then tack other restrictions to those age brackets.

I still don't see the ugly contradiction. The guy was caught and shunned by the general public regarding their actions, the guy could've used a video camera and it would be no different. Again, just because a group of adults have used a piece of technology incorrectly, doesn't mean the identified risks of those devices for young people people are any different. Just because there are drunks walking around committing offences doesn't mean we should allow underage people drinking.

From my perspective I think we do need to ask social media companies to reduce algorithmic feeds that create echo chambers or as you say provide transparent metrics on this. Social media companies should potentially ban infinite scroll/short form video content, however this is going to be difficult to do if its based on age as it will fall back to the ID/age verification issues.

Feeds should also not show content considered R18+ unless manually hidden, this shouldn't be able to be removed. There is some horrifying content that can pop up on these platforms that young people shouldn't see unsolicited.

Lets say that was true legally, its certainly frowned upon and you will be shamed for being an adult blatantly filming underage girls on a train without their permission or reason.

Which is why others on the train were not happy with it.

Well your ability and areas you can shame people might be limited until you're of age.

I'm not asking "what do we do" but that plenty of people write articles poking holes in current policy or suggested future policy, but lack providing a potential solution.

You don't need to convince me, my point was that they can have them but with limited capabilities, like only being able to SMS and call.

IMO if you intentionally and knowingly engineer something for addiction you are committing a form of assault.

Whilst I agree that addictive things can be bad how far does this ago? Food manufacturers purposely make foods that are addictive. Video game companies use ways to make games more addictive.

Companies make things that we want and sometimes we get addicted to wanting it too much.

My question to these sorts of articles is, okay so what do we do then?

What do we do when we know that social media it not healthy for kids. Its not good for their attention spans or mental health to a much greater degree than other forms of media.

Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones, but they should be able to use them without being engulfed in social media content that has been shown to have a negative impact on them. Whether its algorithmic feeds targeting particular age groups or short form video content that is reducing attention spans and the ability to concentrate.

I have no idea how an adult filming young girls on a train has anything to do with social media bans. The Senior Legal Officer is absolutely entitled to having a phone, but absolutely not to use it however he means. The teenagers are entitled to having a phone, but potentially may have limits to how they can use those devices.

Just because there are adults with full agency that do the wrong thing, doesn't mean we should remove protections on young people. Just because adults with full agency drive recklessly, doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds the ability to drive.

Well that's the question isn't it, agency but to what extent. It makes sense to allow teenagers to have more agency over themselves than a 10 year old, but clearly there is an argument for limiting their agency on social media platforms.

Just because there are adults that abuse their agency of the use of alcohol (alcoholism) doesn't mean we should remove restrictions on young people.

Just because there are adults with full agency who drive recklessly doesn't mean we should allow 13 year olds to drive cars.

- You lose me at "toothbrush." I don't want personal care items that have internal batteries at all, because they'll eventually die on me while the device itself (brush heads notwithstanding) is otherwise perfectly functional. I'd much rather keep rechargeable AA(A)s on hand for that kind of stuff. (I still haven't found a good electric razor for this purpose, though, and have actually just gone back to manual for the foreseeable future.)

I've had an Oral B electric brush for around 3 years now and it hasn't skipped a beat. I'd hate to have to change batteries when I can just pop it on a inductive charging dock every night.

I couldn't agree with you more

Is the alternative to then let goods be stolen, have shops lock products away and consume police resources trying to track people down that they have average footage of?

We can think worst case scenario for everything and not doing anything, or be realistic.

I don't think the above commenter disagreed with the need for regulation and the justification for it in this context. But that regulation isn't just for the things you think should be regulated and everything else shouldn't be.

The only difference with the US is that you have interest rates for the term of your mortgage whereas in Australia we can only lock in an interest rate for up to 5 years.

So not only are house prices up, but interest rates are also through the roof and those who bought pre covid at low interest rates are now having to bear todays interest rates.

I very much thought this meant he was propelling the blade itself

This is really cool, however as someone interested in it when I went to the British GP race it is telling me I need to "Sign in to Unlock" to various levels of analytics, but I don't know what I am signing up to see.

It would be great if you haven't signed in, to be able to see a mock up of what it is I would be seeing.

Using just the inbuilt traffic monitor in the Ubiquiti Unifi equipment, works well!

In Australia if you had purchased a decently priced property around COVID time you could now likely be considered a millionaire based on the property valuation and your income.

If only they were regulated and tested to meet a particular standard...

Those in Australia with understand

Yep completely agree.

I lived with about 5 people and our internet was 500mbps and it was more than enough.

Looking at the network monitor the only need for anything really above 100mbps was when people wanted to download something. For daily needs, surfing, browsing, the odd download you don't need a lot. And that's with everyone streaming, scrolling, gaming etc concurrently.

From my experience with SD cards in mobile phone when I worked in a Telco, most customers didn't actually know how to use them. Because in many cases plugging in the SD card didn't magically increase the base storage of the device, they actually needed to know how to store things on it.

But that's a separate issue altogether

I think console players are going to enter the era PC gamers did over a decade ago, but this time it will feel forced as opposed to happening naturally as it did with PC's.

Heck, I have games I bought digitally over 2 decades ago that I can still download and play. There's no way I'd still have kept a box from when I was a teenager.

I agree with this as a PC gamer.

Every game I have purchased on Steam still exists to be played, apart from those where multiplayer servers may have diminished naturally.

If I had these games as physical copies I'd need to have lugged around multiple boxes of games of which I'd probably have lost or damaged the disks.

I agree there is a balance, if the separate device gives you more functionality and enhances the experience over the mobile phone, then I can understand the benefit.

I have a Kindle as well as I find the iPhone screen way too small to read from.

My primary computer is now a desktop with a large monitor, and I’m fortunate to have a room I can use as an office. I also have a laptop, but I only use it when I leave the house – otherwise, it lives in a drawer under my desk.

Pretty normal isn't it? I wouldn't say this is anything different to what a lot of people already do

Yet, some physical restrictions remained – laptops were still heavy and bulky objects. They were something you had to carry in bags, and not something you’d take out casually. There were lots of places where you’d never see or use a laptop.

They have been sleek and capable enough for over 17 years. The first Aluminum Macbook can do everything I still require of my latest Macbook from anywhere.

There’s a growing trend among Gen Z to resist the all-in-one allure of the smartphone, and go back to dedicated devices. They’re swaping their smartphones for single-purpose tools like point-and-shoto cameras or dedicated MP3 players, devices that lack the ability to receive notifications. I haven’t gone that far yet, but it’s something I’m considering.

For me this would create more clutter and require more of my attention to ensure the devices work the way I want them to and that I have them on hand. Yes my MP3 player doesn't show notifications but its another device I need to keep with me and keep charged. Buying a device for the sake of it unless I have a real need just feels like consumerism.

Regulators already decide certain content you can see through age rating restrictions (M15, R18+ etc) and has been the case for decades. Its just that no such ratings has been extended into online content, which is the issue.

These "age verification" laws are - by design - identity attribution systems. They attribute digital identities (accounts) to physical identities (SSN, ID, etc..). This is government's ideal situation, the ability to quickly (automatically?) get identifying information about inconvenient people regardless if they're a criminal or not.

I'll call it out because your article doesn't, but does reference Australia. Here our eSafety commissioner has set the requirements such that the use of Government ID for verification must not be the only option.

There are other age verification technologies that do not assign identity but use other means as a method to identify age. For example, when our ban came into play I wasn't all of a sudden required to offer my ID.