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? Related Story: 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.'” Related Story: 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. Related Story: 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.”fatido Wolfe Research analysts listed stocks with potential dividend cuts as part of its “short screen stock ideas” report. These are stocks have more than 3.5% dividend yield, more than 3.5x net debt/EBITDA or more than 80% payout ratio or more than 80% dividend/FCFE (free cash

NoneThe standard Lorem Ipsum passage, used since the 1500s "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" Thanks for your interest in Kalkine Media's content! To continue reading, please log in to your account or create your free account with us.The regency-style Victoria Barracks in Sydney’s inner east would be converted into residential housing and public parks under proposals from local councillors that echo Paris’ acclaimed transformation of its historic Reuilly barracks. The federal government received an audit of the Australian Defence Force’s sprawling real estate portfolio at the end of last year, which includes the site located between Oxford Street and Moore Park Road, but is now not expected to release its response to the review until after next year’s federal election. Sydney deputy mayor Zann Maxwell outside Victoria Barracks. Credit: Edwina Pickles The City of Sydney will consider a motion on Monday calling for residential redevelopment on parts of the 12.5-hectare Victoria Barracks site if it is put up for divestment as a result of the government’s defence estate review. “Given the density of surrounding Paddington, it’s a site that could potentially accommodate the growing demand for new housing and could provide housing solutions for City of Sydney residents in the future,” says the motion from deputy mayor and Labor councillor Zann Maxwell, which is expected to pass with the backing of Lord Mayor Clover Moore. While up to 50 per cent of Victoria Barracks is heritage-protected, the motion argues that redeveloping parts of the site “could provide significant public benefits, including housing and enhanced community amenities” including parks and bike paths. Arguing that Sydney “needs bold ideas and proactive planning”, Maxwell said: “If Victoria Barracks becomes available, we must be ready to transform it into something extraordinary – something that meets the needs of today while preserving the legacy of the past.” Troops on parade at Victoria Barracks. Maxwell said he wanted to kickstart a debate about how the barracks could be best used if the land is released for alternative use. “I can picture affordable homes integrated with vibrant public spaces, where people picnic on the grass in front of the stunning heritage sandstone barracks, enjoying a space that has been opened up for everyone,” he said.

Next U.S. ambassador Hoekstra 'easier to do business' with: former envoyLilly's 21 lead Brown over Canisius 83-76

Budget Chaos in France and South Korea Strengthens Case for Bitcoin

NoneStephen Lewis After the election, a headline above a political commentary column in The New York Times caught my attention. Not for politics, but for one word. That headline said, “Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now?” The word that interests me is “elites,” the plural of “elite” as a noun when applied to a class of people. So, let’s take a closer look because something a little odd seems to be happening. As an adjective, “elite” refers to the best of something, and that comes, not surprisingly from its source in French. Not surprising because so much of English does track back to the French who conquered England in 1066 and ruled that country for an extended period during which that language mixed with our original Germanic roots. OK. So, the word is a French derivative, meaning to select something, or more clearly to select the best of something. The meaning persists in the word as an adjective describing somebody, someplace, or something. An elite football quarterback is one considered to be the best at that position. And so forth. In this regard, the word’s connotative value is clearly positive. Whatever is being called “elite” is being singled out as among the best of other similar things. But as in the headline that prompted this column, the clarity of the word as a noun becomes less clear. Let’s begin with the denotive level of meaning at which a word points to a group. This is perhaps the most basic level of communication. When English speakers hear the word “table,” they can picture an object with a flat top, supported by legs or some sort of column, that serves the purpose of being a place onto which things can be put. That’s a lot of words for a simple concept, I know, but it is central to what I’m talking about. If we can all agree what the denotative meaning of “table’ is, it seems to me we cannot say the same thing about the denotative value of “elites” in the headline. What we can surmise from the rest of the headline is that the word “elites” references the losers of the election. As a matter of political science, one can argue that to explain the results of an election involving millions of voters spread over our huge country is at the very least, a tad over simplistic. Or even to lay the blame for defeat on a group, or subgroup of the electorate is a serious stretch. Moving to the connotative level of meaning, that which describes the positive, neutral, or negative attitude toward what is being denoted, things get interesting in another way. Simply put, “elite” as an adjective describing a noun, or as a noun itself, has a strongly positive connotative value. I will pause to admit that when we add an “ism’ to the word to create “elitism,” we are talking about something different because that word suggests snobbishness and is negative connotatively. We’re closing toward my point, which is to notice how a word that carries a strongly positive connotative value is turned on its head when it is applied to voters. It seems that the negative vibe of “elitism’ has shifted onto the figurative backs of the losers in the election. They lost not because they are elite in some other way in their lives but because as a class of voters they exhibit elitist disdain for the non-elite. And that is what the headline with which I began indicates. The losers did not have the wrong policy prescriptions, but because they are seen as thinking that as elites their views should prevail. And thus were rejected.

Indiana should be able to breathe easy this week. It has very little chance of making it into the Big Ten championship game. On the other hand, Georgia's spot in the Southeastern Conference title game is so risky that if the Bulldogs lose they might have been better off sitting it out. Over the next two weeks, the warm familiarity of conference championship games, which began in 1992 thanks to the SEC, could run into the cold reality that comes with the first 12-team College Football Playoff. League title games give the nation's top contenders a chance to hang a banner and impress the CFP committee, but more than ever, the bragging rights come with the risk of a season-wrecking loss — even with an expanded field. “I just don’t think it’s a quality conversation,” Georgia coach Kirby Smart said last week, sticking with the time-honored cliche of looking no further than the next weekend's opponent. Those who want to have that talk, though, already know where Georgia stands. The Bulldogs (9-2) are ranked sixth in this week's AP Top 25 and projected somewhere near that in the next set of CFP rankings that come out Tuesday. They already have two losses and will have to beat No. 3 Texas or No. 20 Texas A&M in the SEC title game on Dec. 7 to avoid a third. How bad would a third loss hurt? The chairman of the selection committee insists that a team making a conference title game shouldn't count against it. What that really means won't be known until the games are played and the pairings come out on Dec. 8. "We're going to let the season play out," Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel said. “But I think teams who make that championship game, the committee looks at them and puts them in high esteem." All of which could be good news for Indiana in the unlikely event the Hoosiers find themselves playing for the Big Ten title. IU is coming off a flop in its first major test of the season, a 38-15 loss to Ohio State last weekend. After his team's first loss of the season, coach Curt Cignetti took offense to being asked whether the Hoosiers were still a playoff-caliber team. “Is that a serious question?” he asked. “I’m not even gonna answer that. The answer is so obvious.” What might hurt Indiana, which dropped five spots to No. 10 in the AP poll, would be another drubbing. The Hoosiers would be at least a two-touchdown underdog in a title-game matchup against top-ranked Oregon. The odds of that happening, however, are slim. It would take a Michigan upset over No. 2 Ohio State on Saturday, combined with a Maryland upset over No. 4 Penn State and, of course, an Indiana win over Purdue (1-10). Because this is the first year of the 12-team playoff, there's no perfect comparison to make. For instance, this is the first time Power Four conference champions are guaranteed a spot in the playoff. But 2017 provides a textbook example of how a team losing its conference title game suffered. That year, Alabama had one loss (to Auburn) and didn't play in the SEC title game, but made the four-team field ahead of Wisconsin, which was 12-1 after a loss to Ohio State in the Big Ten championship game. Ohio State didn't make it either — two losses didn't get teams into a four-team field. Neither did undefeated UCF. Saturday's results made things a little more clear for the rest of the conferences: — In the Big 12, winning the title game will probably be the only way for Arizona State (9-2), BYU (9-2), Iowa State (9-2), Colorado (8-3) or anyone else to earn a spot in the 12-team playoff. None are ranked higher than 14th in the AP poll. — The Atlantic Coast Conference could get multiple bids. Miami (10-1), SMU (10-1) and Clemson (9-2) all finished in the top 12 of this week's AP poll. They were cheering the loudest when both Alabama and Ole Miss suffered their third losses of the season. — The Mountain West would be a one-bid conference, but that's only a sure thing if Boise State wins. A loss by the Broncos could open the CFP for Tulane or Army of the American Athletic. Both the MWC and AAC title games take place at 8 p.m. on Dec. 6. — Where the committee places Alabama and Ole Miss on Tuesday will be an indicator of what it thinks of teams with three losses that played very strong schedules. — It could also set the stakes for Georgia, which faces the prospect of loss No. 3 in the Dec. 7 title game, assuming the Bulldogs beat rival Georgia Tech this week. — Clemson has been steadily climbing. Its 34-3 loss to Georgia came on Aug. 31. Is it ancient history to the committee, though? — Indiana's status as a playoff team — in, out, nervous? — will become apparent. The Ohio State game was Indiana's first against a top-flight opponent. Then again, it is the Hoosiers' only loss and their weak Big Ten schedule is not their fault. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-footballMeta to build $10 billion AI data center in Louisiana as Elon Musk expands his Tennessee AI facility

Canada didn't live up to its values on immigration in recent years, Carney says