starbet777
Putin says Russia attacked Ukraine with a new missile that he claims the West can't stop
FMC Corp. stock underperforms Thursday when compared to competitors despite daily gainsPhoto: Unsplash It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids off social media until they turn 16 . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? Platforms will be held liable The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. What unintended harms could be caused? Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a recent blog post . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Other countries are trying to figure it out, too Parents in Britain and across Europe earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are keeping kids off social media either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while France is testing a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — most recently in January — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to protect children from dangerous online content , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the Kids Online Safety Act has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a judge issued the preliminary injunction against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.”
The Atlanta Hawks are looking to snap out of their funk as they host the Dallas Mavericks at State Farm Arena on Monday night. Tip-off is set for 7:30 p.m. ET on NBA TV and streaming on fuboTV. How to Watch Dallas Mavericks vs. Atlanta Hawks: Dallas enters this matchup fresh off a 123-118 loss to the Miami Heat on Sunday, which snapped their four-game winning streak. Kyrie Irving did his part, dropping 27 points in the loss, but the Mavericks couldn't close the gap late. With Luka Doncic and Kyrie leading the charge, Dallas will aim to rekindle the magic of their recent win streak and start this road trip on a high note. Meanwhile, the Hawks have had a bumpy ride lately, losing three of their last four games, including a 136-122 defeat to the Chicago Bulls on Friday. Despite Trae Young's 25-point, 13-assist performance, Atlanta couldn't get the stops they needed to secure a win. Playing at home might give them a much-needed boost, but they'll need a sharper defensive effort to avoid letting the Mavericks' potent offense run wild. WATCH: Mavericks vs. Heat live on fuboTV for free If you purchase a product or register for an account through one of the links on our site, we may receive compensation.
Nordstrom stock soars to 52-week high, hits $24.96Trump 2.0 has a Cabinet and executive branch of different ideas and eclectic personalities
Claims that the incoming Trump administration would weaponize the legal system against Hunter Biden justifies a pardon for President Joe Biden ’s criminally convicted son, his legal defense team said. With just weeks until Hunter Biden is sentenced by California and Delaware judges, his lawyers on Saturday released a lengthy document titled “The political prosecutions of Hunter Biden” that argued his gun and tax evasion convictions this year were politically motivated. The 52-page document pushed for clemency by alleging President-elect Donald Trump would turn the country’s justice system against Hunter Biden once he takes office on Jan. 20, 2025. “A system that is supposed to protect against abuses failed to do so and was corrupted by political leaders in this country,” the document said. “As a result, Hunter faces significant sentences for felonies and misdemeanors far beyond precedents of others committing less serious offenses or where civil resolutions or consent judgments are normally sought — all on the basis of his mistakes, made while in the throes of serious drug addiction.” Special counsel David Weiss has overseen the investigation into Hunter Biden for over a year. President Joe Biden’s head of the Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland, appointed Weiss to lead the investigation in August 2023. Weiss’s team is staffed with attorneys from the Biden administration’s DOJ. The document claimed that “There is no disputing that Trump has said his enemies list includes Hunter. The prospect that Trump will turn his vengeance on the Special Counsel prosecutors if they fail to take a harder line against Hunter no doubt exerts considerable pressure on them not to let up on Hunter.” Hunter Biden was found guilty by a Delaware jury in June of all three charges related to a 2018 gun purchase, including lying on a federal form about his drug use to purchase a revolver, submitting a false statement into a federal record, and unlawfully possessing the firearm for 11 days. Months later, he pled guilty to all nine tax charges he was facing in a California court, meaning he could face up to 17 years in prison and up to $1.3 million in fines. Hunter Biden’s move in September came after he faced accusations he spent millions of dollars made from foreign business ventures on prostitutes, drugs, and other frivolous purchases while neglecting to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. Hunter Biden’s lawyers on Saturday argued the case against him was bogus because he “fully paid his past-due taxes with interest and penalties in 2021 — over two years before any charges were brought.” President Joe Biden has said he will not pardon his son for the convictions relating to the tax and gun charges before he leaves office. However, Trump indicated last month he would be open to pardoning Hunter Biden. The news came after Trump has repeatedly railed against the president's son, particularly in the wake of the laptop scandal that broke in 2020. At the time, reports said Hunter Biden left a laptop at a computer store containing potentially damning information and indicating the Biden family had used the family name to peddle influence and grow their fortunes. Nude photos of Hunter Biden engaged in sexual acts on the hard drive also had critics steaming as Republicans took off with allegations of corruption. Joe Biden and his allies called the laptop story a hoax and a Russian plant. Meanwhile, X released the “Twitter files” in 2022 confirming that the story had been suppressed as misinformation. Following a years-long investigation, court filings from the DOJ released in January verified the computer’s authenticity. “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Trump said in June. “I will totally obliterate the Deep State.” But by the time fall rolled around, Trump was sounding a new note of unity. While he called Hunter Biden "a bad boy,” in October, arguing that “All you had to do is see the laptop from Hell,” he continued to leave the door open to pardoning Joe Biden’s son during his second term. Trump has also suggested he could “easily” put former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in jail over her misuse of handling classified information during her time in the Obama administration. Clinton was found to have sent “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency [Department of State] to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received,” according to then-FBI Director James Comey, whose department led the investigation into Clinton. “Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time,” Comey continued in a July 2016 press release before adding that there was “evidence” that Clinton and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” “I could have gotten Hillary Clinton very easily,” Trump reflected during a recent conversation with Republican radio show host Hugh Hewitt. “I could have had her put in jail.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER However, the president-elect said he decided he "didn’t want to do that” because he believed it would be bad for the country. “I thought it would look terrible,” Trump said.
Previous:
Next: sg777 casino
