The Australian government has recently passed and implemented the world's first social media ban for people under the age of 16. Kids across the country will no longer be able to access websites like Facebook, X, and Instagram, but will, strangely, still be able to access social media sites like BlueSky (a left wing twitter like space).
Some are saying this ban is common sense as children should not be using these platforms, as it exposes them to harmful content, glues them to their devices, and prevents them from socialising face to face.
Others saying this is yet more government control and that governments shouldn't be telling people how they can and can't communicate with their friends.

Kids have responded by downloading VPNs (typically apps that trick your device into thinking it's in a different location, to get around the ban. These VPNs are not illegal, and widely used around the world for a variety of reasons, often to access regional content on platforms such as Netflix and Disney+, as well as for privacy and security reasons). 

Do you support this kind of ban? Do you think it will have the intended effect or will their be some surprise effects?

 

Link 1

Link 2

The UK government has announced plans for anti misogyny classes for boys in schools as part of a wider effort to prevent violence against women and girls. 

But why? Is this something you can teach kids to prevent violence? Or are there wider cultural and societal issues at work here? Some groups have also noted that while violence against women is an important issue, men are actually more likely to be victims of violent crimes, so why is the government only focusing on women instead of a more general neutral course? 

Some people are saying why are they even doing this at all. Someone committing a violent crime against a woman are unlikely to stop because they remembered 50 year teacher Mrs Smith telling them that it is bad to hit women. Criminals are criminals, they break the law and don't care. We already have classes in schools about how smoking, alcohol and drugs are bad, and yet kids still do them. This is sometimes referred to as the Streisand effect, where an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information results in the unintended consequence of actually increasing awareness of the information instead. In this particular case, it seems like this new plan is partly to ensure that young boys don't follow popular but controversial manosphere influencer Andrew Tate. In the efforts to tell kids that he and his ideas and views on women are toxic (which they absolutely are), they (the government and schools) are actually bringing attention to him more than if they had just not mentioned it. 

So is this a good course of action? Do you believe that it will help reduce violence against women and girls as planned? What about violence against men and boys? Or will it have unintended consequences, such as making influencers like Andrew Tate more popular? 

Why is there seemingly an increase in violence against women and girls? And who is causing it?

 

 

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3