Never Before, Even in Wartime…Part 2

Government TechnologyTechnology
Written By Marie Johnson
 
 

Why the Social Media Ban Won’t Work, Even if the Bill is Passed

The passing of the Social Media Ban Bill, is NOT implementation. This is Part 2 to my article published last week, on the defective Under 16s Social Media ban.

➡️ Gerrymandered Process

It is a disgraceful performance of the Parliament and the Albanese Government, that in the final weeks of Parliament, just ONE day was given for submissions to an inquiry that lasted for just a few hours - and yet attracted over 15,000 submissions.

This is treating Australian citizens with the greatest of contempt. In my case, I have a substantial contribution to make, but the gerrymandering of this process has severely compromised my ability – and that of many citizens – to make a full statement, and for that to be considered by decision-makers. I also believe that this gerrymandered process contravenes Human Rights conventions – I am a carer of family with disability and the one-day turn-around time has greatly impacted my caring responsibilities in order to get my rushed submission in. I want to have my say, as a citizen with expertise.

➡️ Population-wide ID. Every layer of this proposal is defective, the trojan horse of a population-wide Digital ID is the first layer. Twenty million Australians use social media.

➡️ Twenty million Australians caught. Every Australian citizen will have to provide their ID to big tech companies to prove they’re over 16 so they can use many areas of the Internet. Sending a gold mine of valuable ID material to unregulated tech bros - absolutely genius.💡Letting Big Tech have our kids’ ID data. What could possibly go wrong?

➡️ Age “assurance”. This is the DigitalID version of RoboDebt - ie, we “think” this is your age, or more correctly, the Algorithm determines this is your age. Just like RoboDebt, the Algorithm determines you have a debt, even if you don't.

➡️ Facial Biometric trial. I know quite a bit about biometrics from actual experience. So please explain exactly how a minor can give informed consent - or even their parents - to the use of technology that is so fundamentally problematic.

➡️ Porn Hub OK. Kids can access Porn Hub, but not YouTube. So in other words, the politicians who support this Bill have no problem with this little gap. And there will be others.

➡️ Isolate kids. This will further isolate all kids, and will disproportionately & negatively affect young people who rely on social media for connection to community. My grandsons, use YouTube TikTok Instagram - and have thrived in their education primarily because of these. This was especially the case during the dreadful COVID lockdown.

➡️ Business will be impacted. How? Read here. Yep, every business will be impacted, cos their staff, pretty much all staff will be required to age verify, just to do their job. What if a staff member refuses to age verify, a personal choice?

 
 

➡️ Surveillance. Government agencies will have access to not only our personal posts, messages, but also the social media activity including research, of businesses. Including overseas business operating in Australia.

➡️Data breaches. Social media companies have been caught in data breaches mounting into the millions of exposures, over the past few years. Government also. So now this will present an additional threat vector for businesses, cos their staff - pretty much all staff - will be required to age verify, just to do their job.

➡️Unconstitutional. Australia's under-16s social media ban could violate the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution, and is likely to lead to a High Court challenge. The IFPC applies where a legal “burden” is placed on political communication, which is defined as communications on matters that might affect a person’s federal vote, their opinion of the federal government, and constitutional referendums. A “burden” arises where the “flow” of political communication is disrupted, which includes a legal disincentive to communicate openly.

➡️Might not play. The social media companies just might not play. Has this scenario been contemplated? The social media companies might just consider Australia too small a market for risk v reward. Of course, freedom of speech is constitutionally protected in the US, so globally this gets very messy.

➡️Unimplementable. In my view, the Social Media Ban is practically unimplementable - and the attempt to try will expose those participating (including children) in the trial to risks that have not been communicated to the Australian public. Of course, many of us know this. Remember, this is the government and bureaucracy that has the sadim touch with technology - ie everything that is touched is f*cked. Some call it the “Sexy Fingers” effect.

➡️Read the submissions from the social media companies. Learn something.

Marie Johnson
Previous

2024: The NDIS Bill Song via AI
Next

‘No previous Australian government, even in wartime…’