Weststigers Wasteland 💩

[Tiger05]

Cookers and their governmental control bullshit.

Dudes - you have to learn to talk about the issues and not what you are hearing. It's your hearing that is screwed up.

Seriously the arguments are always some strawman argument that doesn't exist in reality. The worst thing is that you guys are the ones who shouldn't be on the Internet because you have been indoctrinated.

You guys think the same way Dezi Freeman and those cookers that killed those cops up in Qld thought. Is that who you are ? Is it ? I think you are both good guys who have simply lost the plot and you have an addiction to low quality emotional driven information.

Educate yourself on the actual issues. Don't do it via low quality social media or Murdoch news.

Not everything is a plot by the government to control you. You aren't that important. Vaccines save lives. Climate change is real. You need government intervention in society. These are not debatable by any sane individual.

Onto the actual issue.

From my personal perspective. I have 2 kids in their 20's and they managed themselves pretty well in relation to social media. I have a 15 yo who in my opinion plays too much playstation and doesn't do enough constructive stuff but I don't control my kids. I'll give my 15 yo one of my VPN connections and he'll do what he is going to do anyway.

I'm unsure what I think but I'll post what ChatGPT told me.

What the Experts are Saying​

1. Child Safety / Exploitation Experts​

• Prof. Michael Salter (UNSW): He’s a leading authority on child sexual exploitation. Salter argues that social media was “made by adults, for adults” and aggressively marketed to children. He supports a ban, saying the risk of online sexual extortion and grooming is serious, and that platforms have not done enough. UNSW Sites
• Associate Prof. Katharine Kemp (UNSW Law): She’s a data privacy and consumer-protection law expert. She is critical of how the legislation was developed, saying there wasn’t enough expert consultation, particularly around psychology, suicide prevention, and children’s rights. UNSW Sites

---

2. Mental Health / Psychologists​

• Carly Dober (Australian Association of Psychologists): She’s argued that the ban is a “band-aid” solution. According to her, it distracts from deeper issues like how the internet is unsafe, how hate speech is still pervasive, and how children (especially from marginalised groups) use social media for community and support. SBS Australia
• Dr. Ferdi Botha (Uni of Melbourne): He notes social media is both a source of connection and stress. He warns that banning under-16s might cut off important social benefits, even as it tries to reduce harm. SBS Australia

---

3. Digital Literacy / Education Researchers​

• Dr. Karley Beckman & Dr. Tiffani Apps (University of Wollongong, Centre for the Digital Child): These academics argue that simply banning access won’t solve the root problems. Instead, they call for stronger regulation of tech companies plus more investment in digital literacy for young people. University of Wollongong

---

4. Vulnerability & Marginalised Groups​

• Associate Prof. Amelia Johns (University of Technology, Sydney): Researching migrant teens’ social media use, she warns that the ban could isolate vulnerable youth. For some, social media isn’t just for fun — it’s a critical lifeline for connection and support. RNZ
• Other experts point out that requiring age verification could disproportionately affect certain groups, making it harder for people in vulnerable situations to access online help or safe spaces. SBS Australia

---

5. Tech / Regulatory Experts​

• Meta (Facebook / Instagram) and Google: These companies have pushed back, saying the ban is being rushed through before age-verification trials are complete. They warn that enforcement could be difficult, inconsistent, or lead to unintended consequences. The Guardian
• Some argue (from an Internet-governance perspective) that banning is too blunt — that it fails to distinguish between different platforms (e.g., YouTube) and how they’re used. The Guardian+1

---

6. Broader Academic / International Voices​

• UK child-safety charities and academics have criticised the approach as “retrograde,” warning that bans may push young people into less regulated or safer-sounding but riskier platforms, and stressing that the benefits of social media (e.g., community, peer support) shouldn’t be overlooked. The Guardian
• Some skeptics question whether the science linking social media to harm is solid enough to justify a broad ban. The Guardian

 

[Nutz]

We survived because our parents taught us how to, not the government.
I went to school on my own, in the early 60's, with respect, where did you pluck the census info from?
All I know is, my mother worked when I went to school.
Parents need to take responsibility and don't let the government tell them how to raise their children, which is what the digital ID is really all about.

But you are missing my point about this, WE will have to also prove we are over 16 and once they have that information, the rest doesn't really matter.
If you are unsure, read up on what happens when you U walk in China? BTW, Albo has been to China and said he signed a deal with the same people who enforce their draconian rule now.
It's all coming next month.

Stick your head in a hole in the ground and hope it will all go away.
Social media wasn't around when you were a kid. Lets ignore kids killing themselves and go by your model, perfect. Wake up.

 

[Nutz]

Cookers and their governmental control bullshit.

Dudes - you have to learn to talk about the issues and not what you are hearing. It's your hearing that is screwed up.

Seriously the arguments are always some strawman argument that doesn't exist in reality. The worst thing is that you guys are the ones who shouldn't be on the Internet because you have been indoctrinated.

You guys think the same way Dezi Freeman and those cookers that killed those cops up in Qld thought. Is that who you are ? Is it ? I think you are both good guys who have simply lost the plot and you have an addiction to low quality emotional driven information.

Educate yourself on the actual issues. Don't do it via low quality social media or Murdoch news.

Not everything is a plot by the government to control you. You aren't that important. Vaccines save lives. Climate change is real. You need government intervention in society. These are not debatable by any sane individual.

Onto the actual issue.

From my personal perspective. I have 2 kids in their 20's and they managed themselves pretty well in relation to social media. I have a 15 yo who in my opinion plays too much playstation and doesn't do enough constructive stuff but I don't control my kids. I'll give my 15 yo one of my VPN connections and he'll do what he is going to do anyway.

I'm unsure what I think but I'll post what ChatGPT told me.

What the Experts are Saying​

1. Child Safety / Exploitation Experts​

• Prof. Michael Salter (UNSW): He’s a leading authority on child sexual exploitation. Salter argues that social media was “made by adults, for adults” and aggressively marketed to children. He supports a ban, saying the risk of online sexual extortion and grooming is serious, and that platforms have not done enough. UNSW Sites
• Associate Prof. Katharine Kemp (UNSW Law): She’s a data privacy and consumer-protection law expert. She is critical of how the legislation was developed, saying there wasn’t enough expert consultation, particularly around psychology, suicide prevention, and children’s rights. UNSW Sites

---

2. Mental Health / Psychologists​

• Carly Dober (Australian Association of Psychologists): She’s argued that the ban is a “band-aid” solution. According to her, it distracts from deeper issues like how the internet is unsafe, how hate speech is still pervasive, and how children (especially from marginalised groups) use social media for community and support. SBS Australia
• Dr. Ferdi Botha (Uni of Melbourne): He notes social media is both a source of connection and stress. He warns that banning under-16s might cut off important social benefits, even as it tries to reduce harm. SBS Australia

---

3. Digital Literacy / Education Researchers​

• Dr. Karley Beckman & Dr. Tiffani Apps (University of Wollongong, Centre for the Digital Child): These academics argue that simply banning access won’t solve the root problems. Instead, they call for stronger regulation of tech companies plus more investment in digital literacy for young people. University of Wollongong

---

4. Vulnerability & Marginalised Groups​

• Associate Prof. Amelia Johns (University of Technology, Sydney): Researching migrant teens’ social media use, she warns that the ban could isolate vulnerable youth. For some, social media isn’t just for fun — it’s a critical lifeline for connection and support. RNZ
• Other experts point out that requiring age verification could disproportionately affect certain groups, making it harder for people in vulnerable situations to access online help or safe spaces. SBS Australia

---

5. Tech / Regulatory Experts​

• Meta (Facebook / Instagram) and Google: These companies have pushed back, saying the ban is being rushed through before age-verification trials are complete. They warn that enforcement could be difficult, inconsistent, or lead to unintended consequences. The Guardian
• Some argue (from an Internet-governance perspective) that banning is too blunt — that it fails to distinguish between different platforms (e.g., YouTube) and how they’re used. The Guardian+1

---

6. Broader Academic / International Voices​

• UK child-safety charities and academics have criticised the approach as “retrograde,” warning that bans may push young people into less regulated or safer-sounding but riskier platforms, and stressing that the benefits of social media (e.g., community, peer support) shouldn’t be overlooked. The Guardian
• Some skeptics question whether the science linking social media to harm is solid enough to justify a broad ban. The Guardian

If trying to control a tragic situation from occurring then that is an attempt to do the right thing. There's always a flip side to everything in life. I'll go with the approach of taking our hands out of our pockets and do something.

 

[Tiger05]

If trying to control a tragic situation from occurring then that is an attempt to do the right thing. There's always a flip side to everything in life. I'll go with the approach of taking our hands out of our pockets and do something.

The question to me though is more along the lines of is it a good policy ?

It's actually pretty simple - stop kids accessing social media under 16 and the risk of bullying, grooming and radicalization may be decreased.

It costs about .003% of the budget.

I would state this is low cost & low value and for me that makes it personally not a big issue. If it stopped your kid topping him or herself though you may feel different.

 

[macnaz]

HAHAHA .. drink the cool aid ..

 

[macnaz]

f**king re tards.. no wonder the country is turning to shit

 

[Nutz]

f**king re tards.. no wonder the country is turning to shit

This country is awesome. Are you on the coolaid macca?

 

[Tiger05]

HAHAHA .. drink the cool aid ..

This is a classic example of how the cooker responds.

Do they provide data to back up their feelings ?
Do they provide scientific papers ?
Do they provide any form of rational argument ?

We all know the answer - no, no and no.

It's all emotive bullshit.

Keep consuming junk food information and stay stupid or start using your brain.

 

[Nutz]

with respect, where did you pluck the census info from?

I dont see why I should even drag this into it but you asked....
Many women were recorded in musters, censuses, or population returns as “Home Duties” (or similar terms like “Domestic Duties,” “Housework,” “Wife,” or “Dependent”).

A woman’s role was often defined as:

• housework
• raising children
• managing the household
• supporting their husband’s labour

These were considered natural duties, not paid or formal work.
Because of this, officials did not consider these activities to be occupations and simply wrote home duties. Of course all this changed for equality but it wasn't that long ago considering the age of our colonisation.
I dont see this as the real issue of what your saying about the government has to do with controlling parents role.
I see it as supporting them, as these days both parents are working at a young age, trying to pay off a mortgage and have a young family at the same time, even they aren't prepared for this.
If kids can put their time and energy into living and learning without the necessity of having social media being their role model and the threats that have already been discussed that is associated with it, then so be it.
What is the value of one life?

 

[Tiger05]

f**king re tards.. no wonder the country is turning to shit

Yea. Those sovereign citizens and conspiracy theorists are really doing well today aren't they.

Facts - screw those things. Nuance - don't know what that means.

Feelings and slogans.

 

[Tiger05]

I dont see this as the real issue of what your saying about the government has to do with controlling parents role.

It's a slogan. It has no meaning.

 

[Nutz]

 

[Nutz]

OMG, I nearly lost my missus this arvo, 15 seconds away from tragedy. She was bringing in our portable clothelines indoors because of impending storm.
As she walked towards the courtyard door a huge tree branch crashed down from the weather front and crashed only a couple of feet from her.

 

[Tigerm]

Think hard about digital ID.

 

[Nutz]

Think hard about digital ID.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Nutz]

China’s Social Credit System mostly targets adults, businesses, and debtors — not children.
So the homelessness issue is tied to economic and social pressures, not social-media rules.
A friend of mine recently texted me and said that people with multi million or billion dollar accounts should be hit hard tax wise, I sort of agree, or at least as soon a personal wealth reaches a point a higher percentage of profit should go to the employees.
All over the world poverty is being swept under the rug by those who have the money to keep them there. Well that's how it appears to me.

 

[Tigerm]

Can you elaborate?

Again, Digital ID, is not to protect children, it is to control the population.
The rest of world do this, Labor is just saying it differently.
In fact, the kids will break through the system on day 1, it will take me the time to get the grandkids to do it for me. Hahaha

 

[Nutz]

Again, Digital ID, is not to protect children, it is to control the population.
The rest of world do this, Labor is just saying it differently.
In fact, the kids will break through the system on day 1, it will take me the time to get the grandkids to do it for me. Hahaha

Sorry I thought you were continuing from our conversation about under 16 social media. I apologise.
It is concerning, I get it though. However Digital ID vs China’s Social Credit is not exactly the same thing Tm. Well that's how I understand it.
China’s Social Credit System tracks behaviour (travel, bills, fines, friends, social media) etc.
It scores their citizens.
Like if you have a bad scores you get punishment like travel bans, loans denied, school restrictions etc which is the download like you say.
For Young people, they too can be blacklisted if their parents owe money.
Children can be blocked from school or housing.
It’s a behaviour-monitoring system, not just ID.
Australia’s Digital ID is a better model for us and if you keep vigilant it could help us not control us per se because the way they are reporting, the system it does NOT track behaviour.
No scoring.
Cannot punish you for debt, friends, posts, politics or travel.
Used only to confirm: “This is really you.”
Data is separate, not one big database, WHICH IS THE KEY ISSUE HERE IMO.
You choose when to use it.
Physical ID still works.
Atm, the Australian Digital ID laws ban the following.. .. .
Data cannot be used for monitoring your behaviour. Behaviour monitoring is already in place for years now but that's mainly because we make bad choices, like allowing taylored ads, keeping history, say on YouTube and allowing it to be shared.
It’s illegal to create a social-credit score.
You can refuse to use Digital ID and still access services.

If it were to be introduced, I would want to be assured that the things I mentioned can't be changed unless the whole of Australia understands the proposed changes and is totally transparent.
I was once told by a government employee that the amount of office resources that are basically the same are duplicated in several departments in Australia, like the defence, local state and federal governments as ID's both physical and hard copy. This is a concern too as too many departments have a piece of the pie and crumbs will be scattered.
This contradicts not keeping digital ID in one place....this has to be investigated imo.
I have a MYGOV account where I have linked services like taxation, DVA, Centrelink etc. It is convenient and I'm trusting the system.
I'm nearly 70, so my concerns are primarily for our children and grandchildren. We have to do what's right for them and our planet.
I've been fighting for pollution free energy only to find out that our wind turbines has asbestos......

 

[Tigerm]

Sorry I thought you were continuing from our conversation about under 16 social media. I apologise.
It is concerning, I get it though. However Digital ID vs China’s Social Credit is not exactly the same thing Tm. Well that's how I understand it.
China’s Social Credit System tracks behaviour (travel, bills, fines, friends, social media) etc.
It scores their citizens.
Like if you have a bad scores you get punishment like travel bans, loans denied, school restrictions etc which is the download like you say.
For Young people, they too can be blacklisted if their parents owe money.
Children can be blocked from school or housing.
It’s a behaviour-monitoring system, not just ID.
Australia’s Digital ID is a better model for us and if you keep vigilant it could help us not control us per se because the way they are reporting, the system it does NOT track behaviour.
No scoring.
Cannot punish you for debt, friends, posts, politics or travel.
Used only to confirm: “This is really you.”
Data is separate, not one big database, WHICH IS THE KEY ISSUE HERE IMO.
You choose when to use it.
Physical ID still works.
Atm, the Australian Digital ID laws ban the following.. .. .
Data cannot be used for monitoring your behaviour. Behaviour monitoring is already in place for years now but that's mainly because we make bad choices, like allowing taylored ads, keeping history, say on YouTube and allowing it to be shared.
It’s illegal to create a social-credit score.
You can refuse to use Digital ID and still access services.

If it were to be introduced, I would want to be assured that the things I mentioned can't be changed unless the whole of Australia understands the proposed changes and is totally transparent.
I was once told by a government employee that the amount of office resources that are basically the same are duplicated in several departments in Australia, like the defence, local state and federal governments as ID's both physical and hard copy. This is a concern too as too many departments have a piece of the pie and crumbs will be scattered.
This contradicts not keeping digital ID in one place....this has to be investigated imo.
I have a MYGOV account where I have linked services like taxation, DVA, Centrelink etc. It is convenient and I'm trusting the system.
I'm nearly 70, so my concerns are primarily for our children and grandchildren. We have to do what's right for them and our planet.
I've been fighting for pollution free energy only to find out that our wind turbines has asbestos......

Most of what you have mentioned, is exactly what digital ID will do, YOU will have to prove you are over 16????, once you do that, they have your biometrics and can do anything they want.
Trusting a business, never mind a government (both get hacked every week) with that power is insane and really there is no reason for them to have it anyway.
I certainly don't trust the current government, but who knows what future governments will do. By then, it will all be too late.
I did mention, Albo only recently, when he went to China (without press coverage), said he made a deal with
Huawei, for crowd surveillance technology........join the dots.
It will never be deleted.

 

[Nutz]

Most of what you have mentioned, is exactly what digital ID will do, YOU will have to prove you are over 16????, once you do that, they have your biometrics and can do anything they want.
Trusting a business, never mind a government (both get hacked every week) with that power is insane and really there is no reason for them to have it anyway.
I certainly don't trust the current government, but who knows what future governments will do. By then, it will all be too late.
I did mention, Albo only recently, when he went to China (without press coverage), said he made a deal with
Huawei, for crowd surveillance technology........join the dots.
It will never be deleted.

It's a digital age. So let's don't do anything to control it, mmmmm. It is only going to get worse unless we at least try to come up with a sustainable model.
The issue for me is not what they know, its how they get it and what do they do with it
How many Facebook account holders have given the whole world every detail about thenselves, everything, openly and freely.
How many people don't change passwords and update their security.
You might be dilligent but I guarantee many Australians dont, particularly the aged and the younger citizens
Any sensitive info like bank accounts, passports must be protected because the whole world is going digital.
I was addressing your issue with the homeless being denied a life in China. That's how we got to this point.
So you think under the model I've explained to you will turn us out like China? I'm saying this nicely Tm, even though the written word can be interpreted differently.