enshittified legislation
November 26, 2024 1:53 PM   Subscribe

Annabel Crabb deliciously skewers the Australian Government's latest social media legislation in With its social media ban, parliament delivers a performance piece of legislative enshittification that rises to the cultural moment (Australian ABC)

Ed note- frustrating times and frustrating politics, mostly wanting to share Annabel's quality writing, which I find a joy to read.
posted by freethefeet (19 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
Counterpoint: some tweens are attacking educators with misogynist vitriol while others are bullied into suicide.
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:18 PM on November 26 [2 favorites]


This article uses that word in a way that has nothing to do with how Cory Doctorow defined it.

To be fair, it's not a very good term for what Doctorow was talking about, because it's not very descriptive. Someone should probably come up with a better one.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:43 PM on November 26 [4 favorites]


I always wondered why he felt the need to make a whole new word for a specific case of what is a general feature of capitalism.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:06 PM on November 26 [3 favorites]


(I prefer platform trap to say both what it is and how it gets you; and because you can say it with quite a lot of vitriol despite demure words.)
posted by clew at 5:14 PM on November 26 [1 favorite]


Counterpoint: some tweens are attacking educators with misogynist vitriol while others are bullied into suicide.

How is this different than pen and paper? I don’t think this is a counterpoint to anything.
posted by Uncle at 6:03 PM on November 26 [3 favorites]


The left needs to stop going on moronic nanny state crusades. Be it social media bans in Australia or Operation Choke Point 2.0 in the US, these overreaching nanny state diversions just hand easy wins to the right.
People are so sick of this shit.
Stop trying to manage my life and instead get busy fixing housing affordability.
posted by neonamber at 6:29 PM on November 26


"The Help to Buy bill, which will allow 40,000 first homebuyers to co-purchase with the government, sailed through with no amendments, apart from some technical tweaks from Labor."

The OSA Act is terrible legislation though (and Annabel Crabb does not seem to know what "enshittification" actually means).
posted by GeckoDundee at 7:36 PM on November 26 [2 favorites]


40,000 is still a bandaid. We need structural changes that unpicks the perverse incentives that encourage house scalping and property banking. Negative gearing destroys communities.
posted by neonamber at 7:40 PM on November 26


Counterpoint: some tweens are attacking educators with misogynist vitriol while others are bullied into suicide.

Feel free to demonstrate to the class how you will magically end misogyny and bullying with an unenforceable age gate on an unspecified number of social media sites.

Like this will either require every Australian to go through age verification to use huge chunks of the internet, or it will be laughably easy to circumvent. It's performative shit and will have no demonstrable impact on either of those problems.
posted by Jilder at 8:32 PM on November 26 [7 favorites]


The relationship between the two clauses of "Stop trying to manage my life and instead get busy fixing housing affordability" reminds me of this "Bloom County."
posted by Earthtopus at 9:08 PM on November 26 [4 favorites]


How is this different than pen and paper? I don’t think this is a counterpoint to anything.

I can write something online and the world can see it, instantly. If I write something on paper, it maybe gets passed alone half a class worth of kids before it's lost or confiscated. Online also follows you home in a way that paper can't. There really is a difference between online and pen and paper when it comes to shit like bullying.
posted by Dysk at 9:43 PM on November 26 [7 favorites]


(Does that mean that this is good legislation? No. I have no idea if this is good legislation either way. But the notion that pen and paper facilitate bullying just the same as social media/online life is ridiculous.)
posted by Dysk at 10:33 PM on November 26 [1 favorite]


Dysk: It's very bad legislation. It's light on details - like it doesn't even define what a social media site is - and has been rushed through with almost no community or professional consultation. It also contains no indication on how this will be achieved, and how exactly it will impact the rest of Australian social media users. It's all over-reach with no defined plan to actually enact anything.

Like I have social media accounts - including this one - that are over 16 years old. As an Australian, am I going to have to prove I'm at least as old as the accounts themselves? How will that work? If the Australian government is planning on fining companies, how do they expect companies to do due diligence? Am I going to have to hand Meta real world identification to have access to my 16 year old FB account? What about my linked Isty? It's twelve years old. Does that matter? Will I have to provide real world ID for each one? Every time I log in, just to make sure it's not my 12 year old using my account? How are they going to store that ID, should they collect it?

None of that is addressed, and likely won't be. Currently the legislation is vague on purpose, because it was rushed and I genuinely think no-one involved is even remotely aware of how technically complex age verification is, and how easy to circumvent. It's completely unworkable.

Online also follows you home in a way that paper can't. There really is a difference between online and pen and paper when it comes to shit like bullying.

Kids need spaces to practice their social skills, and age appropriate social media with good curation and parental overview is going to be far, far better for kids than a blanket ban. The aforementioned 12 year old has a few spaces he plays in, that's mostly kids his own age. He'll get more as he gets older. We've had a lot of talks at home about how online spaces work, how to protect himself, and how he can get the most from them. We also keep in touch with how he's doing in those spaces. Sometimes that means we listen to stories about 'fun things' he's doing with mates. Sometimes its about tensions in his friends group. It's not that different than real world socialisation - you have to be prepared to engage with your kid if you want them to have a good time.

We're also a big 'Flag, Block, and move on" household. We're early adopters and have worked hard to make sure he knows he owes no one his online presence.

Giving kids the ability to hide behind a pseudonym also gives kids room to have a circle of friends online that are completely divorced from their school life. It's a second circle of friends. Requiring age verification tied to a real name is going to make kids more, not less, vulnerable to bullying. They can't drop a handle and move on when things get too heavy. They're backed into a corner.
posted by Jilder at 11:28 PM on November 26 [7 favorites]


I don't disagree with any of that, but I still disagree with the notion that online bullying is the same as it happening with pen and paper (which was the intentionally narrow scope of my comment).
posted by Dysk at 12:01 AM on November 27


these overreaching nanny state diversions just hand easy wins to the right.

Dutton fully supports this ban though, despite being on the "right".

There's actually a decent argument to be had that Dutton isn't actually a Liberal, he's actually a National from Queensland that is slowly subverting the Coalition from within. Many of his policy decisions are the exact opposite of what the Liberals would have stood for in the past - Dutton pushing hard for banning gambling ads is very similar to him supporting the social media ban with an age verification scheme...

It's not an impossibility that he wins the next election by growing the reach of the party towards the center while at the same time knowing the actual right wing who hate a nanny state have no one else to vote for except him...
posted by xdvesper at 1:41 AM on November 27 [2 favorites]


The relationship between the two clauses of "Stop trying to manage my life and instead get busy fixing housing affordability" reminds me of this "Bloom County."

Not really. I'm not 'looking for a handout' or trying to get into the housing market. I have a mortgage but I want to see changes to Australia's tax laws that would see housing become a less attractive investment option. This would not be in my financial interest.

Dutton fully supports this ban though, despite being on the "right".

Yeah, but his party was somewhat split on it. If it had passed only Labor would have been burdened with the inevitable media backlash and the future voting block with a justifiable grudge.
Politically this would have been way more trouble than it was worth.
posted by neonamber at 3:03 AM on November 27 [1 favorite]


This sounds like a perfect opportunity for a pay-to-play bidding war among the various social media platforms.
posted by tommasz at 3:46 AM on November 27


Kids need spaces to practice their social skills, and age appropriate social media with good curation and parental overview is going to be far, far better for kids than a blanket ban.

I'm not arguing with this, that sounds great, I think it's also pretty clear that a lot of parents aren't doing this or flat out don't know how? I know that people will say that it's your responsibility to learn and help your kid with this, but I think a lot of people are not actually well versed in parental controls and online safety even if they use social media every day themselves, and most parents I know are already struggling with everything they already have on their plates. It seems to me that completely leaving this to parents isn't working. To be clear I live in the UK and am not going to be affected by this law, I'm not really saying that it's good or not, but I sympathise with feeling that some sort of regulation is needed.
posted by sequel at 4:44 AM on November 27 [1 favorite]


I spent a few weeks in Iran a few years ago, where Facebook, Instagram and the like are illegal for everyone and blocked at the ISP level.

Look over any school kid's shoulder and chances were they were on FB, most people use it, VPNs are a way of life there. If Iran can't manage an effective block I can't see Australia pulling it off.
posted by deadwax at 3:51 PM on November 27 [3 favorites]


« Older Harris to remain in power this time?   |   Jim Abrahams 1944-2024 Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.