In a move touted as a world-first, the Australian government recently passed legislation banning children and teenagers under the age of 16 from using social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook. Framed as a measure to protect the mental health and well-being of young people, the law has been met with mixed reactions from mental health experts, parents, and politicians. While the government claims this legislation is a necessary step to safeguard children, critics argue that it is a rushed and flawed policy, with limited consultation and questionable long-term benefits.
However, this campaign raises deeper concerns about the government’s true motivations.
On the surface, the ban appears to be a protective measure, but it may also serve as a convenient distraction from more sinister actions that have already occurred. Over the past decade, the Australian government has facilitated the digitalization of education and the integration of corporate-controlled systems into schools, effectively selling the digital identities of children to corporations. This includes the collection and sharing of children’s personal data through third-party platforms, biometric systems, and centralized digital networks, often without meaningful consent from parents or children.
The contradiction is stark: while the government claims to care for children by restricting their access to social media, it has simultaneously enabled the commodification of their privacy and data for corporate profit.
This duality raises serious ethical and legal questions about the role of government in protecting its citizens, particularly vulnerable populations like children. Is this new legislation a genuine attempt to protect children, or is it a calculated move to whitewash past actions and set a precedent for corporate immunity?
impromptu ::
Children and teenagers under the age of 16 will be banned from social media after the government's world-first laws passed parliament late on the final sitting week of the year.
Most of the crossbench voted against the bill, as did Coalition senators Matt Canavan, Alex Antic, while Richard Colbeck abstained.
By the ABC Corp algo. on Thu 28 Nov
As we explore this troubling contradiction, it becomes clear that the government’s actions may be less about care and more about control, leaving children as pawns in a larger game of political and corporate interests.
We love how you scroll!
A troubling contradiction in governance, a fully fictitious example, that can go out of hand
On one hand, the government claims to act in the interest of children by proposing laws to "protect" them, such as banning social media for those under 16, while on the other hand, it actively facilitates the exploitation of children’s privacy and data by selling their digital identities to corporations.
This duality raises serious ethical and legal concerns about the role of government in protecting its citizens, particularly vulnerable populations like children, and whether political immunity should shield government actors who engage in such practices.
“ When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new. ” ― Dalai Lama
1. The Contradiction: "Care for Children" vs. Corporate Interests
The proposal to ban children under 16 from social media is framed as a protective measure, ostensibly to shield children from the harms of online platforms, such as cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content, and data exploitation.
However, this announcement can be seen as a performative act or political trickery for several reasons:
- Deflection of Responsibility: By focusing public attention on social media platforms, the government shifts the narrative away from its own role in enabling corporate exploitation of children’s data through educational systems and other means.
- Precedent for Corporate Immunity: By positioning itself as a "protector" of children, the government may be attempting to create a legal and moral precedent that shields it and its corporate partners from accountability for past and ongoing abuses of children’s privacy.
- Convenience Control: The government’s actions appear to prioritize control over children’s digital lives in ways that serve corporate and political interests, rather than genuinely addressing the root causes of harm.
This contradiction undermines the credibility of the government’s claims to care for children and raises questions about its true motivations.
Continue scrolling?
2. Why Political Immunity Should Be Challenged
Political immunity is often granted to government actors to protect them from legal consequences while performing their duties.
However, when this immunity is abused to serve corporate interests at the expense of the public, particularly children, it becomes a tool for avoiding accountability. Here’s why political immunity should be challenged in such cases:
a) Betrayal of Public Trust
Government officials are elected or appointed to serve the public interest, not corporate interests. When they prioritize the profits of corporations over the rights and well-being of children, they betray the trust placed in them by the public. Political immunity should not shield such betrayals.
"If I remember correctly, there is a story told by Scheherazade in A Thousand and One Nights which concerns a young man who was given a very beautiful and very wonderful magic feather. To protect the precious gift he wore it in his cap. However, one day he nearly lost it when his attention was diverted while listening to some persuasive orator in the market place. Thereafter he developed a habit of always feeling for the feather even though his cap was no longer on his head, and in doing so, he discovered that the gesture alone was capable of holding off the magical forces which surrounded him. I like to think that the parable refers to the eternal vigilance necessary for the preservation of a free mind." - John B. de C. M. Saunders, Man and Civilization (1961)
b) Facilitation of Harm
By enabling or directly participating in the exploitation of children’s data, government actors are complicit in harm.
This includes:
- Selling children’s digital identities to corporations,
- Allowing invasive surveillance and data collection in schools,
- Normalizing the commodification of children’s privacy.
Such actions go beyond negligence and enter the realm of active facilitation of harm, which should not be protected by immunity.
c) Erosion of Democracy
When governments act as intermediaries for corporate interests, they undermine democratic principles.
Political immunity in this context becomes a tool for perpetuating corporate control and silencing dissent, rather than protecting the public good.
d) Legal and Ethical Accountability
In democratic societies, no one should be above the law, including government officials.
If political immunity is used to shield officials from accountability for actions that harm children, it sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the rule of law and ethical governance.
Ask yourself: When I'm in physical or emotional pain, what are some of the best things I can do for myself?
3. How Political Immunity Could Be Challenged
While removing political immunity entirely may not be feasible or desirable, there are ways to limit its scope and hold government actors accountable for actions that harm the public:
a) Independent Oversight and Investigations
Establish independent bodies to investigate government actions that prioritize corporate interests over public welfare. These bodies should have the power to recommend legal action against officials who abuse their positions.
b) Transparency and Whistleblower Protections
Require greater transparency in government dealings with corporations, particularly in areas that affect children’s privacy and data. Protect whistleblowers who expose unethical or illegal practices.
c) Legal Reforms
Amend laws to limit political immunity in cases where government actions result in harm to vulnerable populations, such as children. For example:
- Create exceptions to immunity for cases involving the exploitation of children’s data,
- Allow class-action lawsuits against government actors who facilitate corporate abuse.
d) Public Advocacy and Awareness
Raise public awareness about the contradictions in government policies and the harm caused by corporate exploitation of children. Advocacy groups and concerned citizens can pressure governments to prioritize accountability and ethical governance.
Still scrolling?
Need scrolling some more?
Why Indoctrinating Children into Corporate-Controlled Systems Can Be Deemed Child Abuse
- Privacy is Dead! Long Live Privacy: The Tale of a Princess, a Cliff, and the Fight for Digital Dignity
- The ByBit Crypto Scamdemic: A Theoretical Exploration of Hidden Agendas in the Crypto World
- Testing Infinity Auth Loops: A Flirtatious Tale of 2025 or a simple prompt: Can we 'just' have a chat?
- Nominative Entitlements of .AU Domain Policies
- The Importance of Identifiable Information and the Fight Against Scams and Identity Theft
4. The Broader Implications of Corporate Influence
The situation in Australia reflects a broader global trend of governments aligning with corporate interests at the expense of public welfare.
This raises important questions about the role of corporations in shaping public policy and the need for stronger safeguards to protect citizens, particularly children, from exploitation.
a) Corporate Capture of Public Institutions
When governments allow corporations to dictate policies and practices, such as the integration of corporate-controlled systems in schools, they effectively surrender their responsibility to protect the public. This is particularly harmful when it involves children, who are unable to advocate for themselves.
b) Normalization of Exploitation
By embedding corporate systems into education and other public services, governments normalize the exploitation of personal data and create a generation of citizens who are accustomed to surveillance and commodification.
c) Long-Term Consequences
The long-term consequences of these practices include:
- Loss of privacy and autonomy for future generations,
- Increased inequality as corporate systems disproportionately harm vulnerable populations,
- Erosion of trust in public institutions.
“ Never wish them pain. That's not who you are. If they caused you pain, they must have pain inside. Wish them healing. ” ― Najwa Zebian
5. Not for the last: The Need for Accountability
The Australian government’s contradictory actions—proposing laws to "protect" children while facilitating their exploitation by corporations—highlight the urgent need for accountability.
Political immunity should not shield government actors who betray the public trust and harm vulnerable populations. To address this issue, there must be:
- Greater transparency in government dealings with corporations,
- Legal reforms to limit political immunity in cases of harm,
- Public advocacy to demand ethical governance and the protection of children’s rights.
Ultimately, governments must be held to a higher standard when it comes to protecting children, and political immunity should not be a tool for avoiding responsibility for actions that serve corporate interests at the expense of the public.
DR SPACEQUIRE NOW with JOHNNY MAGRITT(e) APPLESEED.PRO and the band:
Determine Your Course
If you require additional assistance feel free to reach out to our intelligence departments via booking a consultation herein. For a comprehensive analysis or to introduce yourself in a unique way. However, as time is of the essence, and the effectiveness of this action remains uncertain. Act swiftly to address your IT needs! 🚀 #ITSolutions #TechSupport #InnovationInProgress #johhnyappleseedpro