Albanese’s Social Media Ban for Teens: Relief or a Hidden Agenda? ‪@DaisyCousensOfficial‬ & Alex Antic

well prime minister Anthony albanesi has announced a social media ban for Australian kids with a minimum age of 14 to 16 years which is yet to be officially decided now while this will certainly come as a relief to parents and indeed teachers all over the country is this in good faith or is it just another attempt by the albanesi labor government to monitor the internet usage of Australian adults well joining me to discuss us is liberal Federal Senator Senator Alex anti Alex welcome to the program so glad to have you here now look we can all agree that social media is place for kids but you have suspicions about albanese's motives for his ban don't you yeah Daisy thanks for having me first off um look I do I mean I I I find this vexing this question because on the one hand um it's very clear that there is a need to protect kids online from a range of issues whether it's uh you know online pornography or just the kind of social media interactions that are leading to problems you know we hear stories after Story of uh of kids being bullied online and so on so it would seem at its on the coace that it's a it's a very simple solution just to take kids off social media but when you start delving deeper into what that actually looks like that's when the problems arise um the first thing of course is how do you do it functionally um and the answer to that is you really can't I don't think do it effectively without their digital ID platform of course your viewers have be well familiar with the digital ID laws that were rushed through in fact pushed through the Senate um without any debate by the way uh earlier in the year which will come into effect soon um this scheme to knock out kids or ban kids from social media seems to have um been pushed off for a while it won wouldn't come into effect for a while and my suspicion is that is because it won't work without the digital ID system um so that's your first problem uh it'll it'll basically be part of this further push for identification um and with that sort of lack of anonymity comes a problem with free speech a lot of people use the uh the internet with its anonymity not for a malicious purpose but simply because it allows them to speak their mind where they may not be able to because of their job or whatever the issue may be um so there's a whole range of issues that come with it of course the big red flag in all of these uh incursions into Freedom incursions into people with civil liberties are the great big safety flag you know the B Banner of safety in particularly child safety and that should always be an issue I think which takes us a step back to to have a look at it and see what's really really happening here so look I do have serious reservations about this and I I explored them in the chamber um this week and I'll continue to do that because I I just see a Battlefront of free speech on the internet that that I just worry needs more protection than it's getting at the moment yeah it is it is a tricky one isn't it because certainly on face value I would love to get kids off the internet I'd love I'd love it that if you had to be have to be 18 to use the internet and social media full stop there's so much depraved stuff there and the interactions they have with each other are so damaging but as you say there are real concerns here about the digital the digital ID so I'm wondering Alex do you think we have a bit of a clash of Rights here so on the one hand you have children and teens right to say safety versus adult also important rights to freedom and privacy yeah and I think it's it's really case of one leading to the other I mean you know maybe in a in a in an imperfect world kids just don't have access to social media and you find a way to do that and you find a way to do it without impinging on the rights of young adults and people generally but that I don't think that's what we'll get here we're always told something at the coace which is quite different to what comes out the other end of the PIP of course we were promised with the digital ID laws as an example that they won't be voluntary and and of course they're really weasel words because you really could extend that sentence out and say well digital ID won't be compulsory unless you want to do anything online which of course everybody does and there have been all these carve outs but none of them are satisfactory as far as I'm concerned so for me it's about protecting uh the uh Free Speech online which I think is so critical and and we have so little of it frankly in this country in many respects expects anyway um that this just looks to me to be another domino in the uh in the grand scheme of things so I I think it's a real worry and it just can't be done um Wily nearly without any consideration yeah it's look it is tough isn't it because the thing is I just wouldn't trust Anthony albanesi to be enacting this in good faith just because of his history on Free Speech I mean comrade albow he he's again Alex proving he's an enemy of free speech he's announced that labor will expand its plans to crack down on quote unquote misinformation on social media by adding political content into misinformation laws before the federal election I mean albo can't be serious with this can he well this is um the newest incarnation of a bill which was famously introduced earlier in in the year or as an exposure dra so it was introduced it wasn't actually it was just circulated for comment and the overwhelming response to it was so bad um there was something like 22,000 responses on the website which is unheard of I mean nobody takes the time like that in those numbers unless they're worried about it but this is the the version they came back with to fix it up in you know in quotes uh it hasn't done that at all I've it's been introduced today I've had a read of it on a very precursory level this morning uh and it's terrible I mean it's just a terrible piece of legislation it it effectively sets up a framework where uh acma which is the media Authority can set up rules for social media companies uh you know platforms like adhtv for example uh and then enforce civil penalties if they are seem to be disseminating misinformation and disinformation and and what is misinformation and disinformation well we don't know yet but uh it's certainly not free speech what it looks like is uh anything which potentially gives rise to offense to vilify you know it's all the language we we're familiar with with the various discrimination acts which of course in themselves are imposts on Free Speech uh and the kicker to it if you want to know what the real agenda here is is that it appears that the mainstream media are exempt so the mainstream media don't have to sign up to that of course the rationale they'll use is well they already have the Press Council they already have other um you know mechanisms but the reality is what this will do is we stop and put a freeze on Free Speech online it will stop uh you know platforms like this um so people on Twitter uh from doing they are there to do which is talk about it and I I have said and I said this week in the chamber I don't think the big problem with misinformation is uh people on Twitter telling us what they think I actually think it's out there when we're being told by experts you know and they're giving us wrong information I mean the government and the mainstream media would have been Rife with misinformation during covid and they would have had no recourse under this this framework as it stands so look this is a real problem this bill I'm I'm very alarmed by this bill cuz as you say like in addition to being on adhtv I also have my own independent YouTube channel which won't get any kind of protections at all that's exactly the type of um social media Outlet this bill would be targeting so as you said goodbye to to Independent commentators it's it's just it's appalling so I'm very glad you're there Alex speaking out on it now look um just before we go we're going to jump sideways a little bit but we have to talk about this the presidential debate was yesterday between Donald Trump and Carmela Harris I'm not sure how much you CAU of it Alex but look uh what did you think well I caught uh bits of it I caught bits of it in in uh in you know replay if you like as well I saw large chunks of it and look I I I have to say I I I thought it was a a little bit of a non-event um I was incredibly Amazed by how well prepared the vice president was I must say I I uh you know I think that it's fair to say that that was a little bit beyond expectations in my respect for the great you know say that look I think ultimately but I think ultimately um the the reality is what seems to be happening after the event is that people who are being pulled are saying well all of that's fine all of the Polish and the rhetor and the flourish and whatever is what it is but ultimately what we heard from Trump was he'll fix the economy and that's what we want so I I think that might have had a slightly perverse effect the uh you know the the debate I think maybe the Democrat Camp think it was a great win but it doesn't seem to be playing out that way out there but honestly who knows in United States elections because it's very hard to take anything we see in the polls seriously even polls about about debates um so and and once again you know I I think it was a bit of a mistake to have it on ABC frankly I think that's never a good idea wherever you are no no it's not and there was so much commentary and it was correct about the moderators having a pro carela Harris bias I mean look my comment quickly before we go is that Trump good on him managed to get in in that closing statement of his the the sing point of the evening which is carela you're saying you're going to do all these good things when you become president well get if you become president that is well you've been in power for three and a half years as the VP why haven't you done them so I thought very well well done Trump for getting that in