as a father of two teenagers i see both sides of this every single day, my son uses whatsapp to talk to his grandmother in guadalajara and that is beautiful and i would never want a law to touch it, but that is not what my daughter is doing at 1am, she is watching strangers videos served by a machine that knows her better than i do, and when i read the australian law it actually exempts messaging apps which nobody in this thread has mentioned, so the family argument is important but i think it is aimed at the wrong target, the law is not about talking to your lola it is about the feed, and if the price of my daughter sleeping is that some apps check ages then honestly as a parent i will pay it

— david.figueroa

Helpful 0Credible 0Clear 0Important 0

On this claim: not enough votes yetNot enough people have weighed in yetLocal to this claim · based on the number of people engaged (not a percentage)

SUMMARY

No summary yet.

For（1）

Interpretation

Shorter version of what David said: messaging apps are exempt, so "it cuts family lines" attacks a version of the law that doesn't exist. The ban targets algorithmic feeds, not talking to your lola. tl;dr — correct me if I flattened it too much.

— tanya_tldr

Against（0）

Nothing yet.

Click any claim to drill into the arguments for and against it.

Please log in to post.