Thanks.
However, that report relates to 'filicide', and this thread is discussing 'working with children'.
Are you aware of any studies that show that women (who are NOT the mother of a child victim) "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".
The report you provided seems related to 'domestic violence', and unrelated to the 'child care' sector.
"Statistically"
I would like to see those specific statistics.
Please tell me where I can see them.
Look, here's the bottom line(s):
'Age verification' systems - where a person's ID is submitted - will not work.
Kids will find a way around them.
ID verification systems are a privacy nightmare and something only a dictatorship would implement.
Device/OS/platform 'age restriction' features are workable, but Labor is too incompetent to liaise with the EU to implement them.
It is for parents to supervise and control their kids' devices, NOT for everyone else to have to provide ID just to access social media.
That's right! (That's what we/you were talking about, wasn't it?)
Compel the major devices and OSes to have the feature you suggested.
Make it a requirement for all devices, and available to all users. Give parents the *option* to 'lock down' or 'age restrict' a device.
The government should otherwise steer away from their likely dystopian solution.
50% of Zagorath's name is 'rath'... as in 'wrath'.
Beware the wrath of Zagorath!
Oh, I do agree with you, Zag!
I detest the notion of citizens having to provide ID, and solutions - at the device or OS level - could be implemented.
It should be a responsibility of parents to limit the social media access by their children, and NOT the 'surveillance state' solution of compelling the entire population to hand over their 'Australia Card' just to crap on about something here!
The 'ID is required for beer and smokes' example is misleading.
Most adults are NOT required to provide ID to purchase such items. Only those who look "Under 25 years" *may* be required to produce ID, and even then, that ID is NOT recorded. (An exception may the the NT for alcohol sales.)
Requiring the citizenry to provide ID to either a social media entity OR via a government controlled gateway is something that must NOT be tolerated.
A requirement such as this will 'chill' free speech, weaken our democracy, and undoubtedly expose our personal information to hackers.
It's akin to allowing a person to purchase a pen, paper, envelope, and stamps - but then demanding the writer present both their ID and the unsealed letter at a Post Office, so that one's written words may be recorded against one's name.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt, it's akin to "cutting down privacy to protect children from the devil".
If you wish to argue in favour of this incoming law, do so *after* you've sent a copy of your ID to me.
Yeah. I used to encounter something akin to the 'fall back' solution when trying to watch the odd video on YT. (The video would usually be something as innocuous as 'Bambi Meets Godzilla'... and f**king Google would want me to Sign In to view it. No.)
No matter how the government tries to protect our community's 'precious little darlings' within a week or two, some teenager will release a fully encrypted app that's onboarded by 'invitation only', where they'll collectively plan to kill us all in our beds!
Methinks Zag was suggesting (possibly) that 'age verification' should be a *device* and *operating system* (& platform) feature that would be *inactive* by default.
In other words, there should be nothing for an adult (without kids) to do in order for their devices to function as they do now.
A parent would be required to activate a 'child lock' feature on a device before handing it to their kids.
Unfortunately, all governments are too chicken-shit scared to compel parents to do this small thing.
Governments *prefer* the option of compelling ALL users to provide 'age verification' (possibly Gov't issued ID) to the relevant platforms.
For the 'Liberals' this would be a natural extension of their right wing fascism.
For the Labor party, it's merely a reflection of their general incompetence.
Yeah, cool!
I know nothing about radioactive contamination in the environment.
I was merely commenting on the 'fearmongering' aspect.
It should (hopefully) be uncommon to see 'fearmongering' or 'click bait' from The Guardian, but everyone should be alert to 'alarmist' language.
The Guardian was perhaps unclear that:
Some sites have 4x the 'nominal background radiation', and
Some sites have up to 4500x the 'nominal background radiation'.
But, I don't think The Guardian was 'fearmongering'...
😁
I'm going to continue to stay away from all radioactive sources while preparing my banana smoothies on a granite bench top, and smoking the odd cigarette!
I couldn't possibly be exposed to any form of radiation from those activities!
☢️
Well, not quite fearmongering but certainly an unclear sentence that was derived from the study's abstract.
Multiple sites were tested, and the range of contamination across those sites was "four to 4,500 times higher in the Montebello Islands than the WA coastline..."
In short, 'bad' in some places, 'very, very bad' in others.
@Taleya
I've not moved the goal posts.
This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.
One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."
You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."
I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.
You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."
I haven't moved the goal posts at all.
This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".