did the slaves on prison somehow believe this wasn't their future?

>>526656437
>Australia, how are you holding up?
Didn't do anything here. I dunno what happened honestly. Government just isn't talking about it anymore. Either something fell apart behind the scenes, companies just ignored it and our Government, it wasn't legal, maybe they couldn't actually implement it technically in the given timeframe, I dunno.

But nothing happened, it was funny as fuck.

>>526658146
cos the law didn't actually define what companies had to do (so they can just say they are "taking steps" to remove kids). but i thought they do require verification for sign up now (face pic/ID/credit card etc.) or no?

>>526658708
Possible, but i've made several accounts for a few of the supposed banned platforms (just because I wanted to research it myself, suss out workarounds if needs be etc) I know facebook has required ID for years now, but not because of any of our laws, just their own policy shift.

Maybe they're just waiting for the commonwealth as a whole to have all implemented the policies before they flip the switch?

Or maybe it's a typical case of our politicians talking about shit they really don't fucking understand, implementing laws that don't work in reality and then patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

>>526658137
The limit should be raised to >18 and applied to chatbots as well.

>>526656437
The theory of removing children's access to the entire inturdnet is very popular and has strong arguments. The issue is that the overlords aren't actually bothered about any of that; they just see it as a convenient vehicle with which to bring in a full digital id which will eventually become the mark of the beast and their total control mechanism.

I believe the government has backed down a little because, despite being famously poor at reading the room, they can feel that if they push this important aspect of their 2030 agenda, the entire thing could fail.

>>526663048
There are no strong arguments for banning kids from the internet. It does nothing to solve the fundamental problem. Every boomer alive grew up without internet and it didn't save them. All it is is a stay of execution. You spend your time on death row and then you turn 16 they allow every part of your brain to get mindfucked by tech corporations. But no one is willing to stand up to tech corporations and ban predatory algorithms. We could easily require social media sites to use chronological feeds that only show posts from people you actually follow, like how they all used to work. Ban recommended and promoted posts. Ban "for you" pages. You only see content you actually choose to see. And this will solve 90% of the problems with the internet without requiring everyone to submit themselves to police state surveillance. But they won't do that. They don't care about solving the fundamental problem. They just want to track everything you do and say so they can control the narrative.

>>526663961
>There are no strong arguments for banning kids from the internet
Yes there are. Its the same argument for banning all normalnoids like yourself from the inturdnet. The entire thing needs to go. If it was possible simply removing smart phones would accomplish the required reversal of control opportunities, remove the norms, women and browns, allowing the net to retvrn to simply being a information bank, but thats not possible. Its gone too far and the rot and degeneracy its enacted, has been a disaster for the human race. We can't have nice things, if we insist on sharing them with niggers and foids; this is a universal reality; cars, planes, guns, anything; the filth of the lower beings always ruins it.