So ... it gets worse. Apparently they're quietly rolling out a porn ban, and part of that is that you won't be able to "log in to a search engine" without verifying your age. As I understand it a YouTube account is kinda different from your google account but the same isn't true for google search.

In the past I thought that even though I don't like it, social media addiction is the issue of the decade. But half the issue is also digital privacy. This not only fails to meaningfully address social media addiction but it also actively worsens digital privacy. This whole crusade is counterproductive.

Officially Steam is not included but they reserve the right to add it back. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted

As for gmail, I can't find a clear answer or even anyone who's asked the question. The whole account deletion thing is stupid, they should just remove all the safety consequences of having an account (limiting interaction, hiding public profiles, etc). Actually they should just make me e-safety commissioner, because I'd do a far better job.

Lets make these all the new states. Abolish the 6 states (and 2 territories) we have and replace them with these.

Banning accounts makes a lot of these worse when it comes to YouTube.

This is exactly what I've been afraid of. Americans have couped our leaders before and Australia recognizing Palestine seems to have been a big deal. I think Albanese has a strong handle on the internal party politics and I think the arithmetic of what happened to Whitlam would be difficult though.

The most likely approach would be to take unfavourable actions towards Australia as a whole and hope it costs Albo the election.

Did you not read what he wrote. I'll give you a chart to make things easy for you.

Remember to buy some extra toilet paper. We're gonna need it soon.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr6970_sched_0b39b629-b044-46e3-b41d-897fe32ca536%22

You're technically correct. I assumed this one amendment was passed in February and was to correct a typo, but looking closer it was in September. Still, this amendment was to basically move forward a report on the outcomes. I wouldn't call that greatly improved, hell I'd say it makes it worse since it will turn the HAFF into a political football when the report shows barely any improvements due to the delays caused by the Greens (6 months + uncertainty) and the long-term nature of the HAFF.

I'm not sure we should be branding these protestors as racist, nor am I sure we shouldn't.

Many NGO's were prepared to hit the ground running with the HAFF funding, by blocking the HAFF the Greens screwed up the prepared contracts. They delayed much needed housing for people genuinely in need by years just so they could get brownie points with renters.

On the minimum payout, Labor conceded on that point immediately. The Greens were not voting against it on those grounds.

And before you say Labor should've made concessions, the Greens unlike Labor don't actually face any electoral pressures since they have less than zero chance of forming government and basically zero chance of losing senate seats. The Greens, for good reason, have become politically toxic to deal with because they think acting like whiny children makes them charismatic. If Labor met the Greens $10 billion spending demands, it would've been used as a campaign point in this year's election and Labor would've lost to the LNP who would've then cut the HAFF.