Where Michael Sukkar was personally a large part of the problem.

Another two today.

All filled with reasoning most generously described as messy. Unsurprisingly no comments allowed.

And in a possible peak irony event, one of today’s articles is BK lamenting exactly the problem (‘when everything is racist nothing is’) that this sort of content is producing.

Surely the news isn’t that slow ?

Michael Sukkar would say that this government should take responsibility for the housing crisis that the Liberal/Nationals spent 9 long years exasperating.

If pollies and journos told the truth the major parties would disappear at the next election. The public would hear from the horse’s mouth how the major parties care nought for the public and only for their donor’s wealth accumulation.

“‘the war between this Labor government, under Chalmers, and the RBA under Bullock’?”
As someone advocating that Chalmers throws the whole RBA board out, it is total eye-roll fodder.

“A poll that shows more voters blame this government for interest rate rises? ….. And they say the Coalition’s echo chamber msm is losing it’s clout?” The dynamics of the mechanisms may be changing, but it certainly looks that the Coalition’s echo chamber msm still holds sway. Unless people are thinking that the government has the power to overrule the RBA and isn’t doing so, but I doubt that very much.

Morning klewso, almost had the corner to yourself today.

This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol.

Absolutely. No difference… Oh, except for one small difference – the evidence revealed by multiple academic studies (as opposed to the “evidence” being relied on by politicians, which is largely cherry-picked by authors selling books telling parents that their kids problems are Somebody Else’s Fault) shows that social media is at best neutral (does just as much good as harm) and possibly net beneficial to kids.

Why the difference in conclusions? Academic studies include kids who use social media in their surveys. The ones that our governments rely on tend to only include adults and focus on asking them questions about the harms that they see. It’s a bit like concluding that children should be banned from playing sports until they’re old enough, based on evidence obtained by hanging out in an Emergency department and surveying the clinical staff and parents bringing their injured kids in.

But anyway, let me get this straight: Children who commit crimes should be sent to prison because at 14/12/10 (depending on state) they’re old enough to be held responsible for their actions, but they can’t check out Tiktok because they’re too young to have sufficient judgement to be allowed to view that sort of content…