Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

[1990crow]

Just a perch higher than yours in this case. Which I'll happily admit is not much of an achievement.

Anyway I've fallen into the old trap of trying to play chess with a pigeon.

Time for me to play with the adults. Bye.

Conservatism is just populism. No care for the population.

 

[Festerz]

Conservatism is just populism. No care for the population.

There's a strong argument to be made that populism (or seeking the middle of the road where the popular vote sits) is where the ALP comfortably resides nowadays too. But that's an argument for another time.

 

[1990crow]

There's a strong argument to be made that populism (or seeking the middle of the road where the popular vote sits) is where the ALP comfortably resides nowadays too. But that's an argument for another time.

Lesser of two evils.

 

[Festerz]

This is the Resolve polling (undertaken for the Nine Entertainment Network which owns the Age/SMH/AFR mastheads) on various questions related to the Bondi terrorist attack which happened on 14 December.

It was published on 26 December - just under 2 weeks subsequent to the attack. As such it is a reasonable indicator of the raw emotions of the community and the response they are expecting from government(s).

I think it's useful to use this as a benchmark for how public opinion is tracking on government responses to the attack and how closely they match the rhetoric being dished up as front page news across major new outlets.

In the early days of publicity after the attack much of the commentary, led by outbursts from Israeli organisations and conservative politicians, was focussed on the government not doing enough to combat antisemitism. The polling shows this is where the majority of public concern is focussed.

As time has passed, more media attention and those of politicians and political activists have been focussed on the specific issue of the need for a Federal Royal Commission. Support for this was less than 50% when the poll was released on Boxing Day. I'll be interested to see if this support tracks upwards given the fo cus it has been given in recent days.

I suspect it will prove my hypothesis that community reaction echoes what has made the front page of media outlets across the country in the days prior to polling. Even now, when legacy media is in a long decline.

 

[sherb]

From the JCA FB page.

Jewish Council of Australia​

Sponsored · Paid for by Jewish Council of Australia

Will you stand with us?
Sign the petition in solidary with Jewish people fighting back against the politicians using the Chanukah Massacre to push their divisive agenda.
At Bondi, we have just witnessed the appalling consequences of hatred and how it breeds radicalisation and violence. But as we have grieved, politicians went on the attack, exploiting a tragedy to sow division and pit our communities against each other.
Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce are attacking our Muslim and Palestinian friends, families and neighbours. Benjamin Netanyahu and Jillian Segal are pushing to erode our civil liberties. Andrew Hastie and Josh Frydenberg are trying to score political points by attacking migrant communities.
We all deserve to feel safe, no matter our religion or where we come from. We cannot allow our grief, fear and anger to be used as a political weapon to spread division and hate.
We are jews, and we are standing up against the division. Join us today by signing our petition.

 

[Festerz]

A reminder of the ever shrinking news cycle and how much it matters in the long term.

Also a reminder of how today’s newsmedia is focused on the currency of the background noise instead of what matters moving forward.
.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I have no skin in this game, so I really don’t care, but none of that proves their motives aren’t clean. It’s also perfectly possible it’s a mix of the opportunistic and the idealistic.

Nothing proves anybody’s motives either way. We don’t know. The only thing we are sure of are actions and we judge based on that.

The major parties have done nothing to protect kids from online dangers. They’ve actively worked against that in the case of gambling.

Now all of a sudden they decide a total social media ban, while cheered on by their media mates who paint the harbour bridge and Flinders Street Station in celebration??

I mean seriously, the tactics aren’t hard to work out. Absolutely anything to damage social media. That’s it. It has wrought hell on their way of doing business, as the declining vote for major parties shows. Whatever they are, they’re not stupid. They cannot control the narrative on social media and it threatens their long-term existence and reason for being.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The second part of that post from Windsor is the important one..It explains motives and likely outcomes succinctly…



Our government is being played by Israeli sponsored right wing Jewish representatives groups whose aims could not be further from peace and unity and are using this tragedy for nefarious reasons.

The second part of that post from Windsor is the important one..It explains motives and likely outcomes succinctly…



Our government is being played by Israeli sponsored right wing Jewish representatives groups whose aims could not be further from peace and unity and are using this tragedy for nefarious reasons.

You don't have to lose that poker game. You can use the meeting to embarrass them. Not terribly difficult.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Interesting consistent research on the harm social media is doing to teen development is emerging.

This from today's Washington Post

'A wave of large-scale studies is quantifying how early smartphone access and heavy screen use can harm adolescent minds — and the findings are aligning in a way earlier research rarely did.'

'The numbers suggest screens are taking a broader, deeper toll on teens than many expected. Across multiple studies, high levels of screen use are linked to measurable declines in cognitive performance — slower processing speed, reduced attention and weaker memory. Rates of depression and anxiety climb steadily with heavier social media engagement. Sleep quality deteriorates as screens encroach later into the night, and researchers are finding troubling associations between screen habits and rising adolescent weight gain.'

'The debate is shifting from one about whether screens have an impact — to one about how far-reaching that impact might be and what society is willing to do about it.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/12/28/adolescent-brain-development-screen-time/

So while some can glibly scoff about the effectiveness of Albanese's social media bans for those 16 and under, the evidence makes it clear that it is at least a move in the right direction in trying to address a problem that is causing long term harm to our kids. And other countries who understand the extent of this problem are taking notice of Australia's attempts to change things.

From the same WP article:

Malaysian officials said a similar ban is starting next year, and the move is being watched by other countries that are considering adopting their own measures.

In the United States, several states have passed laws restricting children’s access to social media. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor who said he may seek the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, has said he considers social media use among children a public health crisis and called for the country to follow Australia’s lead.

can I just make a small point here

• the article you quote is purely talking about screen use
• not specifically social media
• so could be a kid watching videos, playing some scroller computer game etc for 10 hours straight (the type of thing I did do on the old apple 2e)

Edit: after Festerz replied to me I will clarify that the full article does stress social media in addition to screen time

in the link he later posts one of the references in that article is to a published article
"larger effects are observed when females are analyzed separately or when analysis is limited to social media rather than all digital media (Twenge et al. 2020)."

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Anti-semitism, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish?

I'd be interested in knowing , who in the ALP is pro-israel.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

can I just make a small point here

• the article you quote is purely talking about screen use
• not specifically social media
• so could be a kid watching videos, playing some scroller computer game etc for 10 hours straight (the type of thing I did do on the old apple 2e)

There are a lot of effects that aren't evaluated.
There are things OFF the internet that aren't evaluated.
Lets bring everything back to the good old days, like the 1970s when the average age of first heroin use was 15. ( Currently 18 ).

But hey they aren't staring at a screen so it must be good.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Interesting consistent research on the harm social media is doing to teen development is emerging.

This from today's Washington Post

'A wave of large-scale studies is quantifying how early smartphone access and heavy screen use can harm adolescent minds — and the findings are aligning in a way earlier research rarely did.'

'The numbers suggest screens are taking a broader, deeper toll on teens than many expected. Across multiple studies, high levels of screen use are linked to measurable declines in cognitive performance — slower processing speed, reduced attention and weaker memory. Rates of depression and anxiety climb steadily with heavier social media engagement. Sleep quality deteriorates as screens encroach later into the night, and researchers are finding troubling associations between screen habits and rising adolescent weight gain.'

'The debate is shifting from one about whether screens have an impact — to one about how far-reaching that impact might be and what society is willing to do about it.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/12/28/adolescent-brain-development-screen-time/

So while some can glibly scoff about the effectiveness of Albanese's social media bans for those 16 and under, the evidence makes it clear that it is at least a move in the right direction in trying to address a problem that is causing long term harm to our kids. And other countries who understand the extent of this problem are taking notice of Australia's attempts to change things.

From the same WP article:

Malaysian officials said a similar ban is starting next year, and the move is being watched by other countries that are considering adopting their own measures.

In the United States, several states have passed laws restricting children’s access to social media. Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor who said he may seek the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, has said he considers social media use among children a public health crisis and called for the country to follow Australia’s lead.

The SM ban isn't banning screen time. For example, kids can still watch youtube vids without restriction provided they aren't logged in. Youtube and Whatsapp are the #1 and #2 apps used by kids.

Do you think the ban will have a material impact on screen time? I don't think it will.

 

[Festerz]

can I just make a small point here

• the article you quote is purely talking about screen use
• not specifically social media
• so could be a kid watching videos, playing some scroller computer game etc for 10 hours straight (the type of thing I did do on the old apple 2e)

That's not true.

Copyright restrictions obviously prevented me from posting nothing more than a few selected paragraphs from the article. But if you read both it in full - and the research reference links it points to - it makes the clear and (I would have thought) obvious point that its not just about the time spent looking at small screen but the content that is consumed while doing it that is the key issue in terms of damaging child and adolescent development. And yes - to misquote McLuhan from way back in 1964 - "The medium is (also) the message" when it comes to developing minds viewing social media content on a small portable screen that is always connected and can be accessed 24/7.

The article I quoted several scientific studies but at the forefront is 'Protecting the Developing Mind in a Digital Age: A Global Policy Imperative' by Dr Tara C. Thiagarajan et al which makes this point at the introduction to its findings. That algorithmically engineered digital environments increasingly influencing young people’s capabilities and functionings.

This is a clear reference to the social media environment and its impact on young mids. This is backed up further in the study pointing to 'numerous studies have examined the impact of screen time and social media on mental health and wellbeing' and referencing a global analysis of Facebook, Google and other social media platform age-targeting algorithms.

An early summary published at the start of this year year outlining the methodology and approach of this particular study can be found here if interested:

https://sapienlabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Smartphones-and-Mind-Health-final.pdf

 

[Crankyhawk]

That's not true.

Copyright restrictions obviously prevented me from posting nothing more than a few selected paragraphs from the article. But if you read both it in full - and the research reference links it points to - it makes the clear and (I would have thought) obvious point that its not just about the time spent looking at small screen but the content that is consumed while doing it that is the key issue in terms of damaging child and adolescent development. And yes - to misquote McLuhan from way back in 1964 - "The medium is (also) the message" when it comes to developing minds viewing social media content on a small portable screen that is always connected and can be accessed 24/7.

The article I quoted several scientific studies but at the forefront is 'Protecting the Developing Mind in a Digital Age: A Global Policy Imperative' by Dr Tara C. Thiagarajan et al which makes this point at the introduction to its findings. That algorithmically engineered digital environments increasingly influencing young people’s capabilities and functionings.

This is a clear reference to the social media environment and its impact on young mids. This is backed up further in the study pointing to 'numerous studies have examined the impact of screen time and social media on mental health and wellbeing' and referencing a global analysis of Facebook, Google and other social media platform age-targeting algorithms.

An early summary published at the start of this year year outlining the methodology and approach of this particular study can be found here if interested:

https://sapienlabs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Smartphones-and-Mind-Health-final.pdf

thanks for the clarification, I have edited my post.

i'm now a little less worried about my child who is playing lots of games but no human or other online interactions. yay parenting! (?)

 

[Del203211]

This is the Resolve polling (undertaken for the Nine Entertainment Network which owns the Age/SMH/AFR mastheads) on various questions related to the Bondi terrorist attack which happened on 14 December.

It was published on 26 December - just under 2 weeks subsequent to the attack. As such it is a reasonable indicator of the raw emotions of the community and the response they are expecting from government(s).

I think it's useful to use this as a benchmark for how public opinion is tracking on government responses to the attack and how closely they match the rhetoric being dished up as front page news across major new outlets.

In the early days of publicity after the attack much of the commentary, led by outbursts from Israeli organisations and conservative politicians, was focussed on the government not doing enough to combat antisemitism. The polling shows this is where the majority of public concern is focussed.

As time has passed, more media attention and those of politicians and political activists have been focussed on the specific issue of the need for a Federal Royal Commission. Support for this was less than 50% when the poll was released on Boxing Day. I'll be interested to see if this support tracks upwards given the fo cus it has been given in recent days.

I suspect it will prove my hypothesis that community reaction echoes what has made the front page of media outlets across the country in the days prior to polling. Even now, when legacy media is in a long decline.

View attachment 2502898

Ban extremist Islamist Organisations - 6% oppose.

Absolute morons.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Ban extremist Islamist Organisations - 6% oppose.

Absolute morons.

perhaps concerned by what the definition would be? or are extremely committed to the ideals of free speech for all (maybe they are also the ones who wanted section 18c struck out of committed libertarian free speech principles)
or the percentage of people who choose to give a shits and giggles response in a poll (I am guilty of doing this at times when I have been push polled by the LNP)

 

[QuietB]

You do realise the King’s representative in Australia signs the patent for a federal RC. He or she may not set the terms but they’re involved.

It’s not the terms of reference but the independent nature of a RC and how far a RC can go as opposed to a “snap review”. If you aren’t aware of the differences you should read up on it.

Funnily enough, you didn’t complain when the government called the Robodebt RC. I guess the difference for Albo is that antisemitism in Australia isn’t that important and only needs a snap review.

It will be interesting to see what happens next time

So you're saying the Queen sacked Gough

 

[Sttew]

So you're saying the Queen sacked Gough

Am I? That said there are letters signed by the Queen which indicate she had more than a cursory involvement in Whitlam's sacking.

But you're twisting my words; I was merely pointing out that the King's representative signs the patent for a Royal Commission. Festerz was being a smart arse suggesting I was implying that King Charles III sets the terms of reference for a RC, and I pointed out the "King's rep" actually signs off on the RC.

 

[QuietB]

Am I? That said there are letters signed by the Queen which indicate she had more than a cursory involvement in Whitlam's sacking.

But you're twisting my words; I was merely pointing out that the King's representative signs the patent for a Royal Commission. Festerz was being a smart arse suggesting I was implying that King Charles III sets the terms of reference for a RC, and I pointed out the "King's rep" actually signs off on the RC.

I thought the Kings rep only signed off on multiple ministries and his wife sang for visitors?

Although not sure the new GG continues those great traditions?

 

[Festerz]

So you're saying the Queen sacked Gough

I really wouldn't bother my time with this poster QB.

Parroted the claim that Albanese didn't want a Royal Commission because 'he instead wanted to convene a government inquiry the terms of which the government will have full control over'.

Completely unaware that the terms of reference for a Royal Commission are developed by the Government of the Day. And that the final step in enacting any Federal/State legislation or commission requires the assent of the Governor General/State Governors

Seems to imagine the Governor General sits down to set the terms of reference for a Federal Royal Commission. And this is what makes it 'independent'.

Embarrassing. But sadly this is what has happened with the the politicisation of public debate surrounding the Bondi massacre.

 

[Del203211]

Am I? That said there are letters signed by the Queen which indicate she had more than a cursory involvement in Whitlam's sacking.

But you're twisting my words; I was merely pointing out that the King's representative signs the patent for a Royal Commission. Festerz was being a smart arse suggesting I was implying that King Charles III sets the terms of reference for a RC, and I pointed out the "King's rep" actually signs off on the RC.

 

[Sttew]

I really wouldn't bother my time with this poster QB.

Parroted the claim that Albanese didn't want a Royal Commission because 'he instead wanted to convene a government inquiry the terms of which the government will have full control over'.

Completely unaware that the terms of reference for a Royal Commission are developed by the Government of the Day. And that the final step in enacting any Federal/State legislation or commission requires the assent of the Governor General/State Governors

Seems to imagine the Governor General sits down to set the terms of reference for a Federal Royal Commission. And this is what makes it 'independent'.

Embarrassing. But sadly this is what has happened with the the politicisation of public debate surrounding the Bondi massacre.

I'm sure QB can make his own mind up without your advice.



My my. I see you deleted your initial post to me a few minutes ago because you forgot you had decreed "not to play chess with a pigeon". So what do you do instead, send a post to someone else paraphrasing what you were going to say to me. Piss poor effort but clearly standard practice by you. Encourage others to join you and gang up on posters whose views you don't like.

BTW, reference to having full control over a government inquiry means the government can shut it down when it pleases and can tell the man picked to lead the Inquiry not to ask certain questions. Can't do the same with a Royal Commission. While the terms of reference are set by the government the 'royal commissioner' can go where he or she wants within those terms and he/she can compel people to give evidence

A government inquiry led by a former Labor apparatchik is hardly going to delve too deep into possible government failings.

We all know a Royal Commission would probably take 2 years for findings to be handed down (Albo told us this!). Guess what's happening in about 2 years?

Finally I was NOT the first poster to discuss the Robodebt in the same thread as the Bondi massacre; it was actually "one of your mob". But I guess when that happens it's all fair, just not when someone like me does it?

 

[Del203211]

Encourage others to join you and gang up on posters whose views you don't like.

Ban yourself from here mate. This board is dead. Just post about footy.

 

[QuietB]

I'm sure QB can make his own mind up without your advice.



My my. I see you deleted your initial post to me a few minutes ago because you forgot you had decreed "not to play chess with a pigeon". So what do you do instead, send a post to someone else paraphrasing what you were going to say to me. Piss poor effort but clearly standard practice by you. Encourage others to join you and gang up on posters whose views you don't like.

BTW, reference to having full control over a government inquiry means the government can shut it down when it pleases and can tell the man picked to lead the Inquiry not to ask certain questions. Can't do the same with a Royal Commission. While the terms of reference are set by the government the 'royal commissioner' can go where he or she wants within those terms and he/she can compel people to give evidence

A government inquiry led by a former Labor apparatchik is hardly going to delve too deep into possible government failings.

We all know a Royal Commission would probably take 2 years for findings to be handed down (Albo told us this!). Guess what's happening in about 2 years?

Finally I was NOT the first poster to discuss the Robodebt in the same thread as the Bondi massacre; it was actually "one of your mob". But I guess when that happens it's all fair, just not when someone like me does it?

The reason Albanese does not want a Royal Commission is because all that will happen is a huge public fight over the terms of the commission.

The lobby would get involved, the Liberal media would go nuts, Frydenberg would have conniptions, Netanyahu himself would probably want input and ask for a seat on the commission which would then obviously have to move to Israel or Washington - about the only two places where Netanyahu is allowed to go - cause he is avoiding his own commissions and trials of course

It would 100% be a circus of endless pissing and moaning.

It is very difficult for a Prime Minister to maintain social harmony and cohesion when all one side wants to do it divide and throw fuel on the fire.

Let the authorities do their jobs.

 

[Festerz]

Calls for a RC just a political stunt from the LNP in the wake of a tragedy. Standard programming.

Never before has there been an opposition that has blamed a government for an act of terror and mass murder. Before Sunday, the rule for both major political parties was to place national unity ahead of any political gain.

Howard, Morrison, Abbott, Frydenberg, Ley, Joyce, Hanson, Littleproud, McKenzie...the whole gang have jumped on a divisive bandwagon using a terrorist event for political gain. Large sections of the legacy media have used it to get the clicks in the slow period over Christmas.

But slowly the voices of reason are having the courage to make their expert views known on what is happening against the onslaught of shrill politicking. For example..



'In a profession steeped in consensus and cautious alignment, Richter’s refusal to add his name was neither accidental nor surprising. For five decades, he has occupied a singular place in Australian law: a barrister whose authority rests not on popularity but on a fierce attachment to legal principle, even when that attachment places him at odds with his peers.'

He argues that a federal royal commission – particularly one framed around defining antisemitism – is both premature and dangerous.

His concern extends beyond legal doctrine. He warns that a royal commission explicitly framed around antisemitism risks inflaming community tensions – echoing the comments from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about it being a potential platform for hate speech.

“If there is to be a royal commission … and I don’t think we need one,” he said,“it will go for years, and its definitions will be argued about endlessly.”

In Richter’s view, the key institutional failures exposed by the Bondi attack are already apparent.

“The tragedy at Bondi was the result of a stuff-up by ASIO in not red-flagging the man for overseas travel or anything of the kind, red-flagging his father,” he said. “It was a complete stuff-up by a combination of ASIO, the federal police, NSW Police and border control. We don’t need a royal commission for that.”

Hear, hear.