The proper comment is here but I’ll quote.

“In the future we are going to look back on seeing children use iPads that directly connect them to the most sophisticated engagement and manipulation algorithms ever as something as horrid as a child smoking a cigarette, or doing any other drug”

Are you aware of dark patterns? How’re they’re all through websites and games now? To the extent that AI now inadvertently writes websites to include because practically all data their trainings are polluted with them? Simply “educating” people out of what amounts to nearly hostile platforms and algorithms is ludicrous. I get a lot of the criticism for the bill I do. People try to pin this as people crying “think about children” and “just let parents work it out” are woefully misinformed and parent have been failing for decades now.

The proper comment is here but I’ll quote.

“In the future we are going to look back on seeing children use iPads that directly connect them to the most sophisticated engagement and manipulation algorithms ever as something as horrid as a child smoking a cigarette, or doing any other drug”

Are you aware of dark patterns? How’re they’re all through websites and games now? To the extent that AI now inadvertently writes websites to include because practically all data their trainings are polluted with them? Simply “educating” people out of what amounts to nearly hostile platforms and algorithms is ludicrous. I get a lot of the criticism for the bill I do. People try to pin this as people crying “think about children” and “just let parents work it out” are woefully misinformed and parent have been failing for decades now.

I also thinks it worth noting that the senators in opposition (and unsurprisingly now commenter) all seems to be using highly emotive language to criticise the bill. A lot of reducto ad absurdum going on as well (like 3 comments I’ve seen so far with “think of the children” nonsense). Frankly pretty telling.

I see a lot of people parroting surface level points provided by those in opposition to the bill but little addressing it. Especially the “social credit” nonsense. As mentioned in the debate digital ID wouldn’t be the only means for these social media companies to verify users. Though I agree that how it’s been rushed through is inappropriate.

Wasn’t the digital ID addressed in the debate? It seems the main refutations are “it won’t fix everything immediately” and “digital ID will be enforced for everyone”. The only valid complaints I’ve heard are about digital ID which is only one of the way the government will require these companies to verify if I’ve understood the debate. I think “a small portion will work around it” is a weak excuse to avoid dealing what has been a big problem practically since the inception of social media.

Welp went over my head, my bad, imma blame it on Poe’s law or something satirical but critical of the bill my point stands.

If you think that’s a solid argument or one based in logic, good news. You’d probably make for an ideal liberal senator.

Call of duty lobbies mentioned in senate. What a time to be alive lmao

I don’t see how the communist remark is relevant. Social media has proliferated largely unchecked. They are potentially damaging platforms, especially for younger people. That’s ignoring the rampant misinformation. I mean have a look at X and the “your body my choice” nonsense. I’m surprised people are genuinely advocating for the multimillion dollar corporations being in charge rather than our government.

Yeah some of these groups figure out pretty quickly that lectures theatres, being packed full of students make for a great opportunity to spruik your group/event. Unfortunately they would also figure out that first year subjects also had fuller theatres and would often have friendlier/more agreeable lecturers. This was disruptive and delayed lecture before these sort of groups decided it was appropriate to yell out during other people speaking and interrupt others events. I’m surprised it’s taken this long to address.

Another of the recommendations advises “the University prohibit any student from addressing those present in a lecture, seminar or tutorial prior to the commencement of the lecture, seminar or tutorial on any subject matter. A breach of the prohibition may be considered misconduct.”

…

“We help thousands of students each year with casework and legal matters,” he said. “It’s entirely absurd to defund the SRC, this is muzzling us and any students dissatisfied with how the university is operating. “When clubs and societies want to advertise events, as per policy, they could get accused of misconduct for giving announcements.”

So don’t do it at lectures. I think this is straying towards heavy handed by USYD but this has been a problem at my institution too. It is absolutely inappropriate to interrupt tutorials/lectures with this stuff. SRC I couldn’t care less about but other political student groups, nah. Before the whole (recent) Palestine issue we’d have some communist (and one or two other) groups at our uni interrupt the start of lectures. Despite the fact the third time I witnessed it a large portion of the theatre was vocally complaining about it. Around the campus as long as you’re not yelling at people or being disruptive sure but anywhere that people are learning or studying, no thanks.