Merge pull request 'the_failing_social_media_ban' (#13) from the_failing_social_media_ban into master

Reviewed-on: #13

src/content/the_failing_social_media_ban.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+Title: The Failing Social Media Ban
+Date: 2025-06-19 20:00
+Modified: 2025-06-20 20:00
+Category: Politics
+Tags: politics, social meda, tech policy
+Slug: social-media-ban-fail
+Authors: Andrew Ridgway
+Summary: The Social Media ban is an abject failure of policy. Education and the use of the much better existing tools is the key
+
+## 🎯 The Goal: A Legal Framework to Protect Kids
+
+The Australian government’s or should I say Julie Inman's plan to ban social media for teens has sparked on going debate. While the intention is noble—protecting minors from online risks—it’s clear the technical and legal hurdles are massive. This government concept of relying on “facial aging” or “Proof of Age” APIs are prone to privacy violations and data breaches, the government should focus on **legal accountability**. Parents already have tools that let them make decisions about their children’s tech use without needing to hand over photos of their ID. The governments current approach is mired in bureaucracy and the tech world does not thrive in that environment. Instead of trying to outsource the problem to consultants, the government should **educate parents on the tools already available**.
+
+## 🧩 The Problem: Tech Giants Won’t Do It
+
+The government’s plan to enable Inman's vision is to use facial recognition or “age-based” filters. This was flawed from the start. These systems are expensive, unreliable, and not designed for the scale of a national rollout. Even if a company like Meta or Google could do it, they’d **never** do it for the same reason: ** There is no money in the equation**. The only alternative is to outsource to consultants, but those consultants are not equipped to handle the complexity. The government’s plan is a joke, no one is going to build a system that’s 100% accurate, secure, and compliant with privacy laws and those that *maybe* could have no insentive to. No amount of chest thumping by The E-Safety Commissioner will change this fact and throwing frankly meaningless pieces of paper from our legislative assembly will do little more than make them laugh
+
+## 🛠️ The Tools Parents Already Have
+
+Parents (Is it parents? is it in fact fiefdom creation on behlaf of Julie Inman?) must give up on the idea of the government fixing this. , parents should be using the **tools already in their homes**. These tools are **free, secure, and effective**. Some examples include (and I use in my own home):
+
+*   **Fritz Box Parental Controls** (https://en.fritz.com/service/knowledge-base/dok/FRITZ-Box-7530/8_Restricting-internet-use-with-the-FRITZ-Box-parental-controls/) - Allows blocking of websites and apps, setting time limits, and creating user profiles.
+*   **Microsoft Family Safety** (https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/microsoft-365/family-safety) - Provides screen time limits, content filters, and activity reporting.
+*   **Nintendo Parental Controls** (https://www.nintendo.com/au/apps/parental-controls/) - Allows managing game time, content restrictions, and communication settings on Nintendo devices.
+*   **Google Family Link** (https://families.google.com/familylink/) - Enables remote monitoring, app management, and location tracking for children's Android devices.
+*   **Apple Family Sharing** (https://support.apple.com/en-au/105121) - Allows sharing purchases, subscriptions, and location information with family members.
+
+These tools let parents **block apps, limit screen time, and monitor online activity** without needing to share sensitive data. They offer parents full control over what is available and are not dependant on some arbitrary list governed in legislation (which is in an of itself an indicator of how backwards this legislation is)
+
+## 📚 The Real Solution: Education, Not Tech
+
+The government’s plan is a **mistake**. Instead of trying to build a new system, parents should be **educating themselves on the tools already available**.
+
+### 🔄 Flexibility for Every Family
+
+*   **Approved apps**
+*   **Blacklisted content**
+*   **Screen time limits**
+*   **Privacy controls**
+
+These tools let parents **make decisions tailored to their children’s needs**. No one-size-fits-all approach. It gives parents autonomy over their online decision making whilst better respecting everyones privacy, including the childs. Already Julie is making calls to expand the list, this is unacceptable, it is no one but MY choice what is acceptable in my house and for my family. 
+
+## 🧩 Why the Government’s Plan Fails
+
+The government’s plan is a **disaster**. It’s not about fixing the problems of social media use in teens, it’s about giving the perception they are doing something about it using archaic methods and tools that don't go to the root cause. The tools parents already have are **better, cheaper, and more secure**. The only way to make this work is for the government to **stop trying to solve a social problem with tech** and **focus on the real solution: education and parental autonomy**. Stop Letting Julie create her cartel and create her own version of the Chinese firewall
+
+## 📝 Summary: The Right Tools, Not the Tech
+
+The government’s plan is a dead monkey. Instead of trying to build a system that’s 100% accurate and secure, parents should be using the **tools already in their homes**. These tools are **free, effective, and preserve privacy**. They let parents **make decisions about their children’s tech use on a true case by case basis** without needing to hand over sensitive data.
+
+## 🧩 Final Thoughts
+
+The Government's plan, at the behest of Julie Inman, is a **disaster**. It’s not about fixing the problem with social media, it’s about creating the perception they are solving a problem that is already solved. Parents should be using the **tools already in their homes**. The real solution is not to expect a government to fix this, but to **educate themselves on the tools that already exist**. Until we accept that this is our responsbility the problem will continue propogate because the only place it can be fixed is in the home.