This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
He warned the world about the extremely dangerous new technology and how it spread so many lies and misinformation. But did anyone listen?
He was too late. People were already addicted, staring at it obsessively for hours, a simple flick of their finger plunging them deeper into fantasy worlds created by others.
Technology holding untold millions spellbound was perilous. If the insanity continued, he cautioned, it could "lead to a fall back into barbarism".
That was German scientist Gottfried Leibniz in 1680. The modern printing press, already more than a century old, had flooded the world with printed material. Leibniz, alarmed by "the horrible mass of books that keeps on growing", feared their disruptive influence would lead to the end of civilisation.
New technology. Dangerous, right? In the 1870s The New York Times published a warning about the "deliberate malice" behind another menacing invention. This new device would encourage people to stay at home and avoid socialising, retreating to their rooms to listen "to the trembling telephone".
They said it about moving pictures, radio and TV, too. Enslaving the world. Turning us into zombies craving our next dopamine hit. Philo Farnsworth, inventor of the modern television system, banned his children from watching. "There's nothing on it worthwhile," he told his son. "I don't want it in your intellectual diet."
And now we face another bout of over-wrought hysteria. The latest evil culprit causing mayhem in society?
Social media.
Innocent children exposed to violent images. An epidemic of mounting mental health problems. Politicians of all stripes are demanding tough new laws. All of it, not so coincidentally, amid demands for greater regulation of Big Tech by a media organisation - News Corp - watching its global audiences shrink due to the wicked influence of social media.
The federal Coalition is promising legislation to prevent children under the age of 16 from accessing social media. Apparently they will achieve this incredible feat by employing something called age-assurance technology, after which they will unveil an ingenious technique to force spilled toothpaste back into its tube.
Age-assurance technology would require surrendering a child's birth certificate or other verification documentation to companies that already salivate over every morsel of personal data, and have proven to be more than a tad careless in keeping it private.
"We still have a classification system," says the shadow communications minister, David Coleman. "We still have R-rated movies. Nobody says 'let's show an R-rated movie to a 10-year-old'. And yet on social media they see worse things every day."
Worse than the 16,000 simulated murders and 20,000 acts of gruesome violence the American Psychiatric Association estimates children witness on TV and video games by the time they turn 18?
There's no disputing that large swathes of social media are fetid swamps teeming with depravity that no child should be exposed to. Certainly we require restrictions so that vulnerable children and young people, already grappling with adolescent angst, are not placed in danger.
But why do we need the cost, complexity and ultimate futility of new laws in this digital era when a far simpler and inexpensive way to protect children already exists?
No grandstanding politician craving publicity has considered it. But many Australians practise it daily. It's called parental control.
Philo Farnsworth's greatest innovation after pioneering television was preventing his kids from watching it. Apple founder Steve Jobs banned his kids using iPads: "We limit how much technology our kids use at home," he said. Bill Gates likewise controlled his children's computer time. Chris Anderson, a robotics company CEO, was accused of fascism by his offspring for restricting online access. "That's because we have seen the dangers of technology firsthand," Anderson said. "I've seen it in myself. I don't want to see that happen to my kids."
Given the dangers and their vulnerability, what child, particularly under the age of 12, requires a smartphone anyway? Concerned parents seeking reassurance in our connected world now opt for "dumb" phones so their children can only make calls and send text messages. Software blocking access to much of the web's sordid material is also becoming increasingly sophisticated and effective.
The confected outrage over social media also misses another vital point. Binge-watching shows on streaming services for hours is now celebrated and encouraged. Farnsworth would be amused. How is that any healthier for young people compared to a few hours browsing social sites, checking on friends, family or the famous?
Keeping children safe is our greatest responsibility. But surely it is a duty that belongs to parents, not politicians.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Should we legislate to prevent young people accessing social media? What methods, if any, do you employ to limit your online use? Is social media any more dangerous than television? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- A climate lobby group that backed successful independents at the last federal election has experienced a 20-fold increase in donations since the Opposition Leader came out against emission reduction targets. Small individual donations worth almost $950,000 have come in over the past six weeks but there was a major increase in the past weekend, Climate 200 billionaire founder Simon Holmes a Court said.
- Office workers are being overwhelmed by unnecessary meetings, swamped with time-wasting notifications, and are not being given the tech tools that could help them focus on critical tasks, according to a survey of more than 5000 employees. Atlassian's State of Teams report estimated businesses were wasting 25 billion hours of work each year due to inefficient, old-world practices.
- Australia's unemployment rate fell 0.1 percentage point to 4 per cent in May, in line with expectations. Over the month, 39,700 jobs were added to the economy, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
THEY SAID IT: "Social media has become the crack cocaine of the digital world." - Simon Mainwaring
YOU SAID IT: If you think being old turns you off drunks and drunkenness, think again. Young people are steering clear of booze at such a rate, Big Alcohol is having to adapt its business model.
"I decided to do Dry July after my nephew had his 21st birthday on June 30," writes Robyn. "I completed that July alcohol-free. That was 13 years ago and I have not had an alcoholic drink since."
Alan writes: "On a trip to Japan, riding on one of their myriad of beautiful trains in Tokyo, an elderly gentleman sitting next to me struck up a conversation asking 'Where are you from?' 'Australia,' I answered. He then politely asked, 'Is it true that all Australians are alcoholic?'"
"I have never been a big drinker," writes Stephanie. "I'm a dreadful passenger so prefer to be the designated driver. When I arrived in WA from the UK in 2006 and at the end of my first week of work when I was presented with the question 'Red, white or beer?' at 5pm I was pretty surprised. This was in a car dealership, from which we all had to drive home. It simply didn't happen in my 25 years in car dealerships in the UK. This was my introduction to the drinking culture in Australia. In my youth I used to find drunken people amusing but as I've aged I've definitely become less tolerant."
Ian writes: "I think I'm a similar age to you, John, and I grew up in an era when going to the pub was often with the purpose of getting drunk. While studying in England, it was possible to walk and stagger to 18 pubs on a pub crawl, if your constitution and bladder were up to it. Recently, however, I did the Responsible Serving of Alcohol training and was genuinely surprised to learn that licensed premises are required to refuse service if you are drunk or well on the way. As a 'mature' adult and new barman, I'm glad I don't have to tolerate people who behave like I used to."
"In 1974 my drinking habits changed dramatically," writes Stuart. "After a dining-in night at the mess. I went to drive to work and found my car parked on top of the wood heap with all four doors open. No recollection as to how it got there or why all the doors were open. It had a very significant effect on me, when I considered what might have happened that night."
Arthur writes: "Every time I see a drunk person I see a person with a horrible disease for which there is no cure. I get angry with politicians who put a healthy political party fund ahead of a healthy population."
"While most around us seemed to be drinking more during COVID isolation, my wife and I gave up our usual daily bottle of red wine and no longer drink at home," writes Allan. "However, we still enjoy a glass or two when we are out to dinner. And in retirement I really look forward to the twice-weekly catch up at the club or pub with a bunch of like-minded mates where we solve the nations problem's over a beer or wine. I find it simply impossible to drink alone, though, only ever in company."
Hilary writes: "Over the past few years, more and more breweries are making low-alcohol and zero-alcohol beer. It shows there is a sizeable market for these beers. As someone who drinks very little alcohol, and even less as I grow older, the availability and variety of these modified beers is very welcome."