Search

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

A photo taken at Bronte Beach has sparked the age old debate over whether picnickers should be allowed to reserve picnic tables by dumping their stuff on them. The image taken at one of Sydney's most popular beaches, showed two picnic tables under the same hut with table clothes and bags on them, but there was no human in sight. “There were at least half a dozen of these tables ‘reserved’ for a couple of hours on Sunday morning from very early in the day,” one annoyed beachgoer wrote on Reddit. “We got there at 7am and left a few hours later. No one was using the tables the entire time we were there.” The post has received hundreds of comments from other annoyed picnickers, with one going as far as calling it "unAustralian". “It's not acceptable,” one person said. “You can reserve it by sitting there yourself, but not by leaving an item.” “Yes, you should be actually using it, not leaving your s**t on there to reserve it for later,” another added. “It's the height of selfishness.” “Move their stuff, move yourself in, and say, ‘it was like this when I got here’,” one commenter suggested. “All I see is a free tablecloth and free bag,” another quipped. However, a few others pointed out that there were other available seats, and that there are unspoken rules around reserving picnic spots. "In this instance, it’s probably okay,” one wrote. “The back table is free, go grab it.” "As long as there’s people there minding the tables, not just throwing a bunch of tablecloths down and walking off, I’m fine with it,” another added. “First come first served.” “If I was bringing a few things from the car I might do this,” a third commented. “Like dropping off the tablecloth and backpack before grabbing the esky etc. But I'd maintain line of sight. Anything else isn't justified in my opinion.” A spokesperson for Waverly Council have asked people to "refrain from reserving tables and always have a back up plan". “Waverley is the second-most densely populated local government area in Australia outside of the City of Sydney, and we attract millions of visitors every year, so our recreational spaces are at a premium," the spokesperson told Yahoo News Australia. “On weekends and at other peak times, picnic tables and barbecues do invariably fill up. So we ask people to share our spaces so that everyone can have a turn.” Images: Reddit

Travel Trouble

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

In what seems to be a picture perfect wedding, eagle-eyed social media users spotted one odd detail. The couple were snapped standing at the altar, and while everything else about their outfit seemed flawless, one Reddit user called the groom out for wearing black Crocs and black socks to his wedding. “Imagine you get ready for three hours and your groom shows up in Crocs,” the user said. “Crocs would be a legit reason to say no at the altar,” another wrote, before adding: “Crocs are a valid reason to not date someone. They are horrible.” “He’s wearing a suit, maybe he has a problem with his feet that he can’t wear proper footwear,” a third commented “Surely no one, no matter how casual in style, voluntarily leaves the house in Crocs?” However many other social media users were quick to defend the wedding faux pas, with some saying that they wish they had done the same thing at their own weeding. “He probably has an injured foot or broken toe. He’s perfectly groomed (a pun) otherwise and obviously tried to camouflage his socks and crocs with his attire," one sympathised. “Ya I have really severe diabetic neuropathy in my feet, especially my toes. Doctor actually suggested Crocs as they have extra space and don’t restrict movement," another added. “I wore flip flops under my dress. I hate heels with a passion,” a third wrote. "He's wearing a nice suit, matching dark socks so I'm not seeing an issue here as he probably has some kind of foot or back injury or pain. If I were marrying him this wouldn't bother me," added a fourth. “Let the man get married in something comfortable. My wife could have shown up in a potato sack barefoot for all I cared, she is there to marry me, not for a fashion show," a fifth defended. Image: Reddit

Relationships

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Shakira Coldwell, 21, has sparked debate online after copping a $116 parking fine for an "absurd" rule she claims she didn't even know existed. The Aussie woman took to TikTok to share her confusion, and asked if anyone else was aware of the rule. “Was I the only one that didn’t know you can get a parking fine for parking nose in, like the front of your car goes in first instead of backing into a car park?” she asked. She then asked whether the rule was only enforced in Noosa, saying that she was "pretty sure" you could park in any way as long as you stay between the lines. Coldwell then shared a photo of how she parked her car when she received the fine and said that she was “clearly” within the parking lines but hadn’t backed into her space like the car next to her. “Does that not just seem a bit absurd, a bit bizarre?” she said. She also said that she was only just made aware of the fine, as she had been travelling, which means that she may be copping even bigger fees as her payment was now overdue. “I’ve asked a couple of people about this and they literally had no idea that rule even existed. Like, I’m within the lines, it doesn’t matter how I’m parked,” she continued. According to the Brisbane City Council website, failing to park as indicated by an angle parking sign will result in a $116 fine, but Coldwell claims that she didn't see any signs. “So I am a bit confused. Is this just Noosa rule or does everyone know this because I literally did not know this was a rule. And low key $116 for a parking fine that's a bit absurd, given I was within the lines,” she said. Many commenters were quick to inform her that it was actually a common parking rule that wasn't restricted to Noosa. “As someone who lives in Noosa I can 100% guarantee there was a sign saying you had to back in,” one person wrote. “Being within the lines literally has nothing to do with it lol,” another said. A few others said that parking the wrong way in angled spots can make it “dangerous” when backing out into traffic, with one commenter claiming “everyone knows this”. However, a few others were just as baffled as the 21-year-old. “I’d be challenging that. I have never heard of it and there should definitely be signs so if you can go and check the signage,” one said. “Never heard of this before I wouldn’t pay it tell them where to go,” another wrote. According to the <a href="https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/community/local-laws/parking-regulations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Noosa Council website</a>, rear-in angle parking is enforced in certain areas to “ensure a safer parking experience for everyone in the area," and to prevent cars from crossing into oncoming traffic as they try to exit the parking bay. Images: TikTok

Legal

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

The annual celebration of Australia Day on January 26th has long been a subject of contention, but the debate has recently reignited with fervour. Radio personality and long-time panellist on The Project, Kate Langbroek, has weighed in on the matter by saying that altering the date won't resolve the underlying issues. She also lamented the sense of shame felt by many Australians on what should be a day of national pride. "I don't believe that if the date changed that it would be the end of these discussions and this discontent," she said. "But people have a hunger for something to celebrate about their nation, who want to be proud about their nation, and want to be able to have it on an annual basis. I think it's fair enough to want that." In response to her comments, co-host Rove McManus replied: "It does lead to the greater discussion for us as a nation of acknowledging that past so we can celebrate where we are now, which we still haven't done no matter what the day." The discussion on The Project underscored the complexity of the issue. While some, like Langbroek, advocate for maintaining the current date as a day of celebration, others argue for its change to acknowledge the painful history of colonisation. Langbroek then shared an anecdote about how a hesitant greeting of "Happy Australia Day" that she received only goes to show the level of discomfort and ambivalence surrounding the holiday. "[He] then sort of slunk away as if what he said was shameful. I know the reasons for it, I understand the reasons, but it's a great pity for our nation," she said. Co-host Georgie Tunny then proposed the idea of designating January 26th as a day of mourning while finding an alternative date for celebration – a notion met with both sarcasm and consideration. The public response to the panel discussion was predictably polarised . While some adamantly defend the tradition of celebrating Australia Day on January 26th, others advocate for change, citing the need to confront Australia's colonial past honestly. Amidst the discord, there are calls for innovative approaches to Australia Day. Suggestions range from incorporating solemn remembrance of Indigenous heritage in the morning to hosting citizenship ceremonies and festive events later in the day – a reflection of the nation's aspirations for unity and inclusivity. Images: The Project

News

"Too good to be true": Bank teller saves couple from losing $40k

A Tasmanian couple have been saved from losing $40k into an online investment scam after a bank teller noticed the red flags. The couple visited the NAB branch in Rosny, Hobart after their account was blocked during an attempt to transfer the money to an ‘online investment firm’ in Perth. The payment was the first of two instalments that they were set to pay the "firm" but NAB Customer Advisor Erin Bugg saved them from a massive loss. Bugg became suspicious of the firm after they promised a 12 per cent return on their term deposit and a guaranteed pay out if the firm went bust. “If there was a scam red flags bingo card, ‘online investment opportunity’ would be top of the list,” the NAB Customer Advisor said. “Immediately, alarm bells went off for me. It sounded like an investment scam and I was concerned this couple could lose their life savings.” The couple, however, insisted that they weren't being scammed so Bugg decided to look into the matter further and found a website and article about the firm. When she looked into the rates they offered she realised it “was literally too good to be true." “No one likes to be told they’re being lied to, especially when they feel like they’ve done all the right things. They had done their own research, and even spoken to the company on the phone,” she said. She added that "alarm bells" started ringing when the wife explained that a man from the firm kept calling her to thank her for the investment and encourage her to open an account. The couple then rang the "firm" in front of Bugg to try and convince her it was real. “I declined to speak to the ‘firm’, but I could hear them telling the customers, ‘Oh, NAB always flags us as a scam’,’” she recalled. NAB’s fraud team then informed them that the firm had a bank account at another bank, and to call the bank to confirm whether it was legit. After calling the other bank, they found that the account was not connected to the investment firm and suggested them to not transfer anything. “It was such a relief to hear from the customer that they’d avoided being scammed,” Bugg said. This comes after Scamwatch received over 7,000 reports of investment scams collectively costing Aussies over $275 million in the last year. Image: NAB

Money & Banking

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

An obese woman has sparked debate online after refusing to give up the second seat she paid for to a fussy toddler. The 34-year-old booked the two seats for her cross-country flight to visit her family for Christmas because she was previously unable to comfortably fit in one seat. All was well until the young woman next to her demanded that she "squeeze into one seat" so her son could sit on the other. "I am obese," she admitted on the Reddit thread. "I'm actively working toward losing weight and I've made progress - but I booked an extra seat because I'm fat." She added that she insisted on keeping her seat because she paid for it, but the mum "made a big fuss over it, and she told the flight attendant I was stealing the seat from her son." "Then I showed her my boarding passes, proving that I paid for the extra seat. The flight attendant asked me if I could try to squeeze in, but I said no, that I wanted the extra seat I paid for." The woman claimed that the toddler was only 18 months old, so he didn't need his own seat and could've sat on his mum's lap for the duration of the flight. "I got dirty looks and passive-aggressive remarks from her for the entire flight and I do feel a little bad because the boy looked hard to control - but am I in the wrong?" she asked other social media users. Many shared their overwhelming support for the woman and slammed the mum and flight attendant for their "horrific" behaviour. "The mum is an a**hole for not buying a seat for her son and assuming someone else would give up a seat they paid for. Odds are she was hoping there'd be extra seats on the flight so she didn't have to pay and used the lap thing as a loophole," one commented. "What's even the point of the extra seat if the flight attendants are going to let entitled people bully others into giving it up?" another added. "People buy entire seats for high-end musical equipment. Not even people. Their lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on your part," a third wrote. However, there were a few others that said the woman was in the wrong for causing an inconvenience. "If you are so fat that you have to have more than one seat on an airplane then you are selfish," one said. "Flights overbook all the time especially during the holidays - how can you justify having two seats to yourself?" "How much room does a kid take up, seriously? Yeah the mum should've bought a seat but that doesn't mean you have to be selfish and cause two people discomfort," another commented. Image: Getty

Travel Trouble

“Imagine being offended by gingerbread": Woolies shopper slammed online

A Woolies customer has come under fire after pointing out a "woke" change in the iconic Christmas cookie. The shopper took to Reddit to slam the Woolworths Bakery for renaming the festive packs of cookies to Gingerbread People, rather than Gingerbread Men. “Woolworths has renamed their biscuits Gingerbread ‘people’,” they wrote in the forum, with a picture of the new label. “Apparently Gingerbread ‘man’ isn’t woke enough.” Instead of people agreeing, many thought he was a weir-dough (pun intended), and said that it was “no big deal”. “I’m trying really hard but too busy caring about my electricity bill doubling in the last year to have energy left over for gingerbread people,” one wrote. “Imagine being offended by gingerbread," another commented. “Seriously? Like if you wanted some gingerbread, you wouldn’t buy them because they’re called people?" a third wrote. “Once again confirming that anyone that actually uses the word ‘woke’ is a pathetic little manbaby," a fourth slammed. Others agreed that it was strange to see people get annoyed about a name change. “And you got so offended you came to Reddit to post about it. Who is the d***head here them or you?” “God I love watching the snowflakes melt over this," responded another. There were only a few people who agreed with the shopper, and said that the supermarket giant had gone too far. “At some point soon I’m just not going to care about offending people. If you can’t handle a biscuit with man in the name, simply grab a box of tissues and retreat to your safe space,” wrote one user. “Jesus Christ. It’s a f***ing biscuit vaguely shaped like a human. Do we need to make a biscuit gender neutral so we don’t offend people?” added another. Images: Getty/ Reddit

Food & Wine

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The best 100 cities on the planet have been revealed, with three Aussie cities making the final list. The list was compiled by as part of an annual report by <a href="https://www.worldsbestcities.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Resonance Consultancy</a>, who rated major capital cities on three main factors: liveability, lovability and prosperity, with dozens of factors taken into account. These include educational attainment, GDP per capita, poverty rate, the number of quality restaurants, shops and nightclubs, walkability, the number of mapped bike routes, quality parks and museums, as well as ratings from TripAdvisor and Google. The top ten chart features four cities on the Asian continent, four in Europe and two in the U.S. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were all featured in the list, coming in at numbers 31, 35 and 57 respectively. Taking out the number one spot this year is London, dubbed the "capital of capitals" that "reigns over all global cities" as the best metropolis in the world. The study proclaims it as the most liveable and the most lovable mecca, solidified by its winning culture and education attainment. The report concludes, "Despite crippling Covid lockdowns and economic devastation. Despite Brexit. Despite a war in Europe. The city is more indomitable and part of the global discourse than ever. From the Queen's death, to last autumn's chaotic drama at 10 Downing Street that finally calmed down with Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister, only to take heavy local election losses this spring, London is rarely quiet these days." Here's the full list of top 100 cities in the world. 1 - London, England 2 - Paris, France 3 - New York, USA 4 - Tokyo, Japan 5 - Singapore 6 - Dubai, United Arab Emirates 7 - San Francisco, USA 8 - Barcelona, Spain 9 - Amsterdam, Netherlands 10 - Seoul, South Korea 11 - Rome, Italy 12 - Prague, Czechia 13 - Madrid, Spain 14 - Berlin, Germany 15 - Los Angeles, USA 16 - Chicago, USA 17 - Washington, D.C., USA 18 - Beijing, China 19 - Istanbul, Turkey 20 - Dublin, Ireland 21 - Vienna, Austria 22 - Milan, Italy 23 - Toronto, Canada 24 - Boston, USA 25 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 26 - Budapest, Hungary 27 - São Paulo, Brazil 28 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 29 - Stockholm, Sweden 30 - Munich, Germany 31 - Melbourne, Australia 32 - Lisbon, Portugal 33 - Zürich, Switzerland 34 - Seattle, USA 35 - Sydney, Australia 36 - Doha, Qatar 37 - Brussels, Belgium 38 - San Jose, USA 39 - Bangkok, Thailand 40 - Warsaw, Poland 41 - Copenhagen, Denmark 42 - Taipei, Taiwan 43 - Austin, USA 44 - Oslo, Norway 45 - Osaka, Japan 46 - Hong Kong, China 47 - Tel Aviv, Israel 48 - Athens, Greece 49 - Frankfurt, Germany 50 - Vancouver, Canada 51 - San Diego, USA 52 - Orlando, USA 53 - Helsinki, Finland 54 - Miami, USA 55 - Buenos Aires, Argentina 56 - Hamburg, Germany 57 - Brisbane, Australia 58 - Kuwait, Kuwait 59 - Las Vegas, USA 60 - Montreal, Canada 61 - Glasgow, Scotland 62 - Shanghai, China 63 - Rio de Janeiro, USA 64 - Auckland, New Zealand 65 - Atlanta, USA 66 - Houston, USA 67 - Busan, South Korea 68 - Philadelphia, USA 69 - Naples, Italy 70 - Denver, USA 71 - Nashville, USA 72 - Manchester, England 73 - Dallas, USA 74 - Liverpool, England 75 - Minneapolis, USA 76 - Mexico City, Mexico 77 - Minsk, Belarus 78 - Lyon, France 79 - Portland, USA 80 - Rotterdam, Netherlands 81 - Bogotá, Colombia 82 - Kraków, Poland 83 - Valencia, Spain 84 - Santiago, Chile 85 - Birmingham, England 86 - New Orleans, USA 87 - Bucharest, Romania 88 - Leeds, England 89 - Muscat, Oman 90 - Ottawa, Canada 91 - Cologne, Germany 92 - Charlotte, USA 93 - Calgary, Canada 94 - Nagoya, Japan 95 - Düsseldorf, Germany 96 - Hanoi, Vietnam 97 - Gothenburg, Sweden 98 - Sapporo, Japan 99 - Bilbao, Spain 100 - Baltimore, USA Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Parents have shared their thoughts on letting their children live at home rent free, as the age old debate of paying board stirred up some strong opinions. A <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/money/should-children-over-the-age-of-18-pay-board-if-they-still-live-at-home-reader-poll-exclusive/77876711-2950-4bf3-bb30-716442a6fd74" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nine.com.au</a> reader survey asked the question: Should children over the age of 18 pay board if they still live at home? The responses were many and varied, as a whopping 72 percent of respondents said grown up kids should be contributing financially to the household. One person commented, "If children have employment, it's important that they clearly understand that life is not free and they need to budget, show accountability and responsibility." Another wrote, "If the children over 18 are working, then yes, they should contribute or give money to the parents to bank for them." Others said children shouldn't be expected to pay board, and would rather their kids save money for bigger financial commitments. "My parents did not charge me board even though I was working because they did not need the money and told me to save for my first car, which I did," one person shared. Another wrote their parenting tactic, writing, "I let my children not pay board. So they could save for a deposit on a house. They did and they all (3) have a house." Despite many people sharing their strong opinions on the matter, most respondents said it was not a black and white question, as many households have individual circumstances that affect their decision. "Depends on if they are working or not and what income the parents have. My son is 22 but unemployed due to health problem, we just pool our unemployment payment so it differs for each family situation, not a YES or No answer," one reader wrote. Another said it depends on their employment and study status, writing, "Yes if they're working almost full time, not if they're studying and just working part time to cover living expenses." The poll comes as Aussies have struggled with a rise in basic living costs, with <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/australian-household-spending-statistics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABS</a> data showing that Australian households spent a total of $1.2 trillion on what was classed as general living costs in 2022. This sum is close to $100 billion more than in 2021. The average household spent $130,353 in 2022, which is the equivalent of $2507 per week. This is a 20.4 per cent jump on the previous year. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

A 12-second clip of two passengers arguing on a plane has reignited the age-old debate of whether it is acceptable to recline your seat on a plane. The viral video which was originally posted on TikTok and then re-shared on X, has racked up over 8 million views since Thursday. In the video, a frustrated woman was calling out another female passenger for pushing her seat the entire flight, right after they landed. “The whole trip she pushed my seat,” the woman said to a male passenger seated next to the female passenger accused of kicking her seat. “You seen it. You know she did.” “I’m allowed to put my seat back," she yelled repeatedly. Ian Miles Cheong, the user who posted the video on X, defended the woman saying: “She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space.” A few were on the woman's side and praised her for standing up for herself. “You are allowed! Period! You want space in front of you instead of pushing the seat, buy a seat with extra space or get your a** to business class. Reclining was put there for a reason,” one person wrote. “She was patient enough to wait till flight landed," they added. “If the seat is reclinable, recline it,” another commented. "What she’s saying is right. The woman has a right to put her seat back without someone kicking it," a third agreed. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space. <a href="https://t.co/WELD7Qh4Re">pic.twitter.com/WELD7Qh4Re</a> — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1719881310351863952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2023</a></blockquote> However, others claimed that there was an unwritten rule that you shouldn't recline your seat, especially on a short-haul flight, adding that the recline feature should be scrapped from airplanes. “Putting your seat back in coach is an unspoken thing most people don’t do. It’s really the airline’s fault because they’ve made coach so cramped and tight that putting the seat back shouldn’t even be an option,” one commented. “Airline seats simply shouldn’t be able to recline. It intrudes on the already very little space a person has on the plane for the person behind them,” another added. “Really it’s the airline’s fault for cramming so many people in such a small space. They don’t call it cattle class for nothing,” a third wrote. One user understood both sides of the argument, and blamed the airlines for making the seats so cramped. "It can be annoying sometimes to be behind someone with their seat all the way, but if the airlines didn't want to allow that, it wouldn't happen," they wrote. "You don't kick the seat like a baby. Blame the airline, not the person doing what the airline says is fine." Images: Twitter

Travel Trouble

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> The National Party’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/more-sanctions-for-unemployed-beneficiaries-under-national/">pledge to apply sanctions</a> to unemployed people receiving a welfare payment, if they are “persistently” failing to meet the criteria for receiving the benefit, has attracted plenty of comment and <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/nationals-benefit-sanctions-plan-cruel-dehumanising-greens/">criticism</a>. Less talked about has been the party’s promise to index benefits to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living. This might at least provide some relief to those struggling to make ends meet on welfare, though is not clear how much difference it would make to the current system of indexing benefits to wages. In any case, this alone it is unlikely to break the cycle of poverty many find themselves in. One of the major drivers of this is the way the welfare system pushes some of the most vulnerable people into debt with loans for things such as school uniforms, power bills and car repairs. The government provides one-off grants to cover benefit shortfalls. But most of these grants are essentially loans. People receiving benefits are required to repay the government through weekly deductions from their normal benefits – which leaves them with even less money to survive on each week. With <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/132980318/auckland-mother-serves-up-cereal-for-dinner-due-to-rising-food-costs">rising costs</a>, the situation is only getting worse for many of the 351,756 New Zealanders <a href="https://figure.nz/chart/TtiUrpceJruy058e-ITw010dHsM6bvA2a">accessing one of the main benefits</a>. <h2>Our whittled down welfare state</h2> Broadly, there are three levels of government benefits in our current system. The main benefits (such as jobseeker, sole parent and supported living payment) <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2023.html">pay a fixed weekly amount</a>. The jobseeker benefit rate is set at NZ$337.74 and sole parents receive $472.79 a week. Those on benefits have access to a second level of benefits – weekly supplementary benefits such as an <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/accommodation-supplement.html">accommodation supplement</a> and other allowances or tax credits. The third level of support is one-off discretionary payments for specific essential needs. Those on benefits cannot realistically make ends meet without repeated use of these one-off payments, unless they use assistance from elsewhere – such as family, charity or borrowing from loan sharks. This problem has been building for decades. <h2>Benefits have been too low for too long</h2> In the 1970s, the <a href="https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/12967">Royal Commission on Social Security</a> declared the system should provide “a standard of living consistent with human dignity and approaching that enjoyed by the majority”. But Ruth Richardson’s “<a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/124978983/1991-the-mother-of-all-budgets">mother of all budgets</a>” in 1991 slashed benefits. Rates never recovered and today’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/29/benefit-increases-will-still-leave-families-locked-in-poverty/">benefits are not enough to live on</a>. In 2018, the <a href="https://www.weag.govt.nz/">Welfare Expert Advisory Group</a> looked at how much money households need in two lifestyle scenarios: bare essentials and a minimum level of participation in the community, such as playing a sport and taking public transport. The main benefits plus supplementary allowances did not meet the cost of the bare essentials, let alone minimal participation. The Labour government has since <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-income-increases-over-14-million-new-zealanders">increased benefit rates</a>, meaning they are now slightly above those recommended by the advisory group. But those recommendations were made in 2019 and don’t take into account the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-at-6-0-percent">sharp rise in inflation</a> since then. Advocacy group <a href="https://fairerfuture.org.nz/">Fairer Future</a> published an updated assessment in 2022 – nine out of 13 types of households still can’t meet their core costs with the current benefit rates. <h2>How ‘advances’ create debt traps</h2> When they don’t have money for an essential need, people on benefits can receive a “special needs grant”, which doesn’t have to be repaid. But in practice, Work and Income virtually never makes this type of grant for anything except food and some other specific items, such as some health travel costs or emergency dental treatment. For <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/27/very-stressful-beneficiary-says-he-cant-afford-msd-debt/">all other essential needs</a> – such as school uniforms, car repairs, replacing essential appliances, overdue rent, power bills and tenancy bonds – a one-off payment called an “advance” is used. Advances are loans and have to be paid back. There are several issues with these types of loans. First, people on benefits are racking up thousands of dollars worth of debts to cover their essential needs. It serves to trap them in financial difficulties for the foreseeable future. As long as they remain on benefits or low incomes, it’s difficult to repay these debts. And the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0032/latest/whole.html">Social Security Act 2018</a> doesn’t allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to waive debts. <h2>Contradictory policies</h2> Another problem is that people on benefits have to start repaying their debt straight away, with weekly deductions coming out of their already limited benefit. Each new advance results in a further weekly deduction. Often these add up to $50 a week or more. MSD policy says repayments should not add up to more than $40 a week, but that is often ignored. This happens because the law stipulates that each individual debt should be repaid in no more than two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paying this debt off in two years often requires total deductions to be much higher than $40. The third issue is that one-off payments can be refused regardless of the need. That is because there are two provisions pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand the law says a payment should be made if not making it would cause serious hardship. But on the other hand, the law also says payments should not be made if the person already has too much debt. People receiving benefits and their case managers face the choice between more debt and higher repayments, or failing to meet an essential need. <h2>Ways to start easing the burden</h2> So what is the fix? A great deal could be achieved by just changing the policies and practices followed by Work and Income. Case managers have the discretion to make non-recoverable grants for non-food essential needs. These could and should be used when someone has an essential need, particularly when they already have significant debt. Weekly deductions for debts could also be automatically made very low. When it comes to changing the law, the best solution would be to make weekly benefit rates adequate to live on. The government could also make these benefit debts similar to student loans, with no repayments required until the person is off the benefit and their income is above a certain threshold. However we do it, surely it must be time to do something to fix this poverty trap.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212528/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, Associate professor - Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/forcing-people-to-repay-welfare-loans-traps-them-in-a-poverty-cycle-where-is-the-policy-debate-about-that-212528">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Hilarious reason dad couldn't be fooled by online scam

One savvy dad has outwitted a scammer who posed as his daughter, after the scammer made one hilarious error. Ian Whitworth, a dad from Sydney, took to his LinkedIn page to share the message a scammer texted him in a classic phishing scam that targets parents. He shared the photo of what he thought was the "funniest phishing text any parent has ever received". The text read, "Hey dad, dropped my phone in the sink while doing the dishes. Its unresponsive this is my new number for now just text me here x." Despite the terrible grammar and punctuation that would immediately alert anyone to the possibility of a scam, it was something else that caught the dad's attention. Instead, Whitworth said it was the fact his daughter would never do the chore mentioned by the scammers. Still, he thought it was worth sharing a photo of the text in a bid to warn others, which he uploaded along with the comment, "Cybersecurity update. I just got this." "Perhaps the funniest phishing txt any parent has ever received. 'Doing the dishes', yeah, for sure." In a reply to one of the people who commented on his post, Whitworth joked that his daughter "at age four emerged from my parents' kitchen with a shocked look on her face. 'What's pop doing?'. He was washing up in the sink." Another commenter wrote, "Haha! There is NO WAY this is from my son or daughter, that's for sure." Another commenter said the giveaway that it wasn't from his own child was that they didn't immediately ask for money, to which Whitworth replied, "Ha, yeah, the phishers are like the seven step ladder of confidence before the money issue gets raised. Actual kids: MONEY NOW." According to the federal government's Scamwatch website run by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the "Friends/Family Hi Mum" impersonation scam was common. "Scammers send messages pretending to be a family member or a friend desperate for money," it said. "They say they have a new phone and they need you to pay money to help them out of a crisis." Scamwatch warns: "Don't assume a person you are dealing with is who they say they are" and offers the following advice. "If someone you know sends a message to say they have a new phone number, try to call them on the existing number you have for them, or message them on the new number with a question only they would know the answer to," it said. "That way you will know if they are who they say they are." Image credits: Getty Images / LinkedIn

Legal

The ‘yes’ Voice campaign is far outspending ‘no’ in online advertising, but is the message getting through?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrea-carson-924">Andrea Carson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/max-gromping-1466451">Max Grömping</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-strating-129115">Rebecca Strating</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/simon-jackman-310245">Simon Jackman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> With early voting set to open next week for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, this is a critical time for campaigners to win over voters. If the <a href="https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n11054/pdf/ch01.pdf">2022 federal election</a> is anything to go by, Australians have developed a taste for early voting, with fewer than half of all voters actually going to a polling station on election day. If the same voting patterns apply to the referendum, this means more than half of Australians, particularly <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/correlates-of-early-voting/49D19E94A1D26F9AFE1B72DCB56AFF3F">older voters</a>, may have cast a vote before voting day on October 14. <h2>What’s happening in the polls?</h2> Public polls indicate support for the “yes” campaign continues to decline, despite, as we’ve shown below, huge spending on advertising and extensive media coverage of its message. According to <a href="https://simonjackman.github.io/poll_averaging_voice_2023/poll_averaging.html">Professor Simon Jackman’s</a> averaging of the polls, “no” currently leads “yes” by 58% to 42% nationally. If this lead holds, the result would be <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_statistics/1999.htm">even more lopsided</a> than the 1999 republic referendum defeat, where the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_referendum_reports_statistics/summary_republic.htm">nationwide vote </a> was 55% “no” to 45% “yes”. The rate of decline in support for “yes” continues to be about 0.75 of a percentage point a week. If this trend continues, the “yes” vote would sit at 39.6% on October 14, 5.5 percentage points below the “yes” vote in the republic referendum. If “yes” were to prevail on October 14, it would take a colossal reversal in public sentiment, or it would indicate there’s been a stupendously large, collective polling error. Or perhaps both. <hr /> <iframe style="width: 100%;" src="https://simonjackman.github.io/poll_averaging_voice_2023/level_plot_standalone.html" width="100%" height="688"> </iframe> <hr /> <h2>What’s happening in the news and social media?</h2> Using Meltwater data, we have seen a massive spike in Voice media coverage since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the referendum date at the end of August. In the most recent week we analysed, from September 14-21, we saw a huge jump of mentions of the Voice to Parliament (2.86 million) in print media, radio, TV and social media. This compares to about a quarter million mentions in the first week of the “yes” and “no” campaigns, which we documented in our <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-no-campaign-is-dominating-the-messaging-on-the-voice-referendum-on-tiktok-heres-why-212465">last report</a> of this series monitoring both campaigns. Voice coverage now constitutes 6.7% of all Australian media reporting, up from 4.2% in week one. To put that in perspective, mentions of Hugh Jackman’s marriage split from Deborra-Lee Furness comprised 1.5% of total weekly coverage, while mentions of the AFL and NRL amounted to 4.1% and 1.7%, respectively. Media coverage of the Voice peaked on September 17 with 38,000 mentions, thanks to widespread coverage of the “yes” rallies that day around the country. This was followed closely by 35,000 Voice mentions the next day, led by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/voice-will-see-lawyers-in-sydney-and-melbourne-get-richer-dutton/video/40349a54a9f0c2f48baec7ba7263a000">claim</a> on Sky News that a Voice to parliament would see lawyers in Sydney and Melbourne “get richer” through billions of dollars worth of treaty negotiations. Our analysis of X (formerly Twitter) data provides further insight to these trends, showing the nationwide “yes” rallies on September 17 received the most public engagement about the Voice during the week we analysed. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549754/original/file-20230922-21-tp54x2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>X (Twitter) data accessed via Meltwater. Author provided</figcaption></figure> <hr /> <h2>Who is advertising online?</h2> This week, we specifically turned our attention to the online advertising spending of the campaigns. We also examined the types of disinformation campaigns appearing on social media, some of which are aimed at the Australian Electoral Commission, similar to the anti-democratic disinformation campaigns that have roiled the US. The main online advertising spend is on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms. We have real-time visibility of this spending thanks to the ad libraries of Meta and Google. The Yes23 campaign has far outspent any other Voice campaigner on these platforms. In the last three months, its advertising expenditure exceeds $1.1 million, compared to just under $100,000 for Fair Australia, the leading “no” campaign organisation. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=241&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549942/original/file-20230925-23-7tl134.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=303&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Top five Voice campaign spenders on Facebook and Instagram since June 2023. Meta ad library</figcaption></figure> <hr /> Yes23 has also released a far greater number of new ads in September (in excess of 3,200) on both platforms, compared to Fair Australia’s 52 new ads. The top five spenders from both sides are listed below. As early voting nears, this graph shows Yes23 ad spending outpaced Fair Australia on both Google and Meta platforms in week three, as well. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549762/original/file-20230922-23-1bi7ov.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Campaign ad spending on digital platforms from Sept. 14-21. Authors provided.</figcaption></figure> <hr /> The advertising spending data shows how drastically different the strategies of the two main campaigns are. Yes23’s approach is an ad blitz, blanketing the nation with hundreds of ads and experimenting with scores of different messages. In contrast, the “no” side has released far fewer ads with no experimentation. The central message is about “division”, mostly delivered by the lead “no” campaigner, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. All but eight of the ads released by the “no” side in September feature a personal message by Price arguing that the referendum is “divisive” and “the Voice threatens Aussie unity.” To win, “yes” requires a majority of voters nationwide, as well as a majority of voters in a majority of states. The “no” side is strategically targeting its ads to the two states it believes are most likely in play – South Australia and Tasmania. It only needs to win one of these states to ensure the “yes” side fails. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549949/original/file-20230925-20-zgr4wg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1001&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Campaign ad spend on Meta platforms across the states since mid-August. (Dark blue = greater the ad spend). Author provided</figcaption></figure> <hr /> <h2>Referendum disinformation</h2> The Meltwater data also reveal a surge in misinformation and disinformation targeting of the AEC with American-style attacks on the voting process. Studies show disinformation surrounding the referendum has been <a href="https://osf.io/qu2fb/">prevalent</a> on X since at least March. To mitigate the harms, the AEC has established a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">disinformation register</a> to inform citizens about the referendum process and call out falsehoods. We’ve identified three types of disinformation campaigns in the campaign so far. The first includes attempts to redefine the issue agenda. Examples range from the false <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-02/fact-check-indigenous-australians-support-for-the-voice/102673042">claims</a> that First Nations people do not overwhelmingly support the Voice to <a href="https://stephenreason.substack.com/p/the-voice-to-parliament-the-united">conspiracy myths</a> about the Voice being a globalist land grab. These falsehoods aim to influence vote choice. This disinformation type is not covered in the AEC’s register, as the organisation has no provisions to enforce truth in political advertising. The register does cover a second type of disinformation. This includes spurious claims about the voting process, such as that the referendum is voluntary. This false claim aims to depress voter turnout in yet another attempt to influence the outcome. Finally, a distinct set of messages targets the AEC directly. The aim is to undermine trust in the integrity of the vote. A most prominent example was Dutton’s <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/voice-voting-rules-confusion-stinks-dutton-20230824-p5dz41">suggestion</a> the voting process was “rigged” due to the established rule of counting a tick on the ballot as a vote for “yes”, while a cross will not be accepted as a formal vote for “no”. Sky News host Andrew Bolt <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1256952825005993">echoed</a> this claim in his podcast, which was repeated on social media, reaching 29,800 viewers in one post. Attention to the tick/cross issue spiked on August 25 when the AEC <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/25/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-aec-poll-unfairness-claims-rejected">refuted</a> the claim (as can be seen in the chart below). Daily Telegraph columnist and climate change denialist Maurice Newman then linked the issue to potential <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/maurice-newman-aec-rules-on-voting-could-create-confusion-uncertainty/news-story/c76bc3e1e031c2f349710dd1e9f3b51e?btr=15aad1c65d873d8f896d09618a96e228">voter fraud</a>, mimicking US-style attacks on the integrity of voting systems. <hr /> <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=267&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/549852/original/file-20230924-23-ob3ltn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Disinformation attacking AEC or referendum over past month. Authors provided</figcaption></figure> <hr /> The volume of mentions of obvious disinformation on media and social media may not be high compared to other mentions of the Voice. However, studies show disinformation disproportionately grabs people’s attention due to the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0224-y">cognitive attraction</a> of pervasive negativity, the focus on threats or arousal of disgust. All three types of disinformation campaigns attacking this referendum should concern us deeply because they <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00104140231193008">threaten trust</a> in our political institutions, which undermines our vibrant democracy.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213749/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrea-carson-924">Andrea Carson</a>, Professor of Political Communication, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/max-gromping-1466451">Max Grömping</a>, Senior Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-strating-129115">Rebecca Strating</a>, Director, La Trobe Asia and Associate Professor, La Trobe University, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/simon-jackman-310245">Simon Jackman</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-yes-voice-campaign-is-far-outspending-no-in-online-advertising-but-is-the-message-getting-through-213749">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

“I run on bananas and coke cola": Kyrgios wades into doping debate

Nick Kyrgios has raised eyebrows over his out-of-pocket comments on the recent doping scandal surrounding the world of tennis. The Aussie champion spoke over current testing protocols in the wake of Romanian tennis player Simon Halep being slapped with a four-year ban from the game for doping offences. Naturally, many tennis champions from around the world have put in their two cents on the recent ban, as Greek player Maria Sakkari called out the measures for being "scary". She told a tennis news site, “One thing I can tell you for sure is the way they’re handling every situation with any player, any athlete, it’s just scary.” “We’re gonna get to a point where we’re not even gonna be taking electrolytes. Thankfully, I haven’t been in that position. I never want to be. I’ve been very careful with everything that has to do with supplements. But I don’t know what the process is, how things are done behind closed doors." Nick Kyrgios was quick to jump in to the debate, responding to Sakkari's comments on Twitter saying, “Ehhhh not really lol.” “I run on bananas and coke cola in 5 set battles. And my record in them speaks for itself." “Maybe players should just stop taking shady sh*t. Look yourself in the mirror at the end of the day and say yep I did it right. Not hard.” Fans soon came after Kyrgios, but he doubled down. Kyrgios responded to one Twitter user’s sledge by posting, “I’d imagine if I was taking similar things to be banned for 4 years I’d have about 5 slams. Potato”. Kyrgios has had a difficult season as he has been forced to take time off to recover from injuries to his wrist and knees. He has urged his fans to be patient as he works on his recovery, as he is determined to get back on the court. "To my millions of fans out there, I guess we just have to be patient,” Kyrgios wrote in an Instagram story, accompanied by a picture of him in the gym. “Trust me, I still have some fire left in the tank, my body just needs time to recover and get back.” Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Misinformation and the Voice: how can you spot and defuse false claims?

On 14 October, Australians will vote in their first referendum in 24 years. <div class="copy"> The question – whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament – has been hotly debated for much of this year already, and campaigning will ramp up for both the Yes and No votes in coming weeks. <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/what-if-instead-of-blaming-readers-of-misinformation-we-showed-them-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-facts-and-falsehoods/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-type="link" data-id="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/what-if-instead-of-blaming-readers-of-misinformation-we-showed-them-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-facts-and-falsehoods/">Misinformation</a> and <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/covid/inoculating-against-disinformation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-type="link" data-id="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/covid/inoculating-against-disinformation/">disinformation</a> about the referendum have also been circulating, both on- and offline. What should we be keeping an eye out for, and what are the best methods of dealing with misinformation? Cosmos investigates. “There’s a whole field unto itself on how you classify misinformation,” says Dr Natasha van Antwerpen, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Adelaide. It can vary “from the very blatant, absolute lie, through to something that, even if all the facts are correct, the actual impression that you get is not true”, she says. It’s particularly difficult to see if you’re dealing with statements about the future – such as, ‘a Yes or No vote will cause this thing to happen’. “With prediction, it can be really challenging, because you don’t really have a ground truth to work with,” says van Antwerpen. “Things that you can always look out for tend to be: if it’s a really extreme statement, if there’s no degree of uncertainty in the prediction, and sometimes if it’s very obviously feeding into a politicised narrative, that can be a bit of a red flag.” Acknowledging uncertainty is often a better sign that the information is true, says van Antwerpen, as is checking someone’s citations. “What are the bases that they’re making those predictions on? Have they actually got solid research evidence behind the predictions that they’re making, as opposed to speculation?” While the actions both campaigns want people to take in this referendum are very simple – either vote yes, or no – they rest on a very complicated cultural context. “There’s a lot of things that are feeding into people’s decision making that don’t just come from the campaign, they have extraordinary long legacies in Australia,” says Dr Clare Southerton, a lecturer in digital technology and pedagogy at La Trobe University. “When you’re trying to inform people, they’re always going to be interpreting it through their own lens. And that’s how misinformation is able to circulate so rapidly: people respond to it in emotional ways, because they’re coming to it from their own personal histories.” What’s the best way to deal with misinformation if you do come across it? “I wish there was a simple answer,” says Southerton. “Unfortunately, research shows that at this point there is really no most successful strategy.” That said, there are things that work in different circumstances. Southerton says that on social media, reporting the misinformation is a reliable strategy. “When misinformation is mass-reported, it does get taken down – unfortunately, not usually before many, many eyeballs have seen it.” What about your friend or relative who’s dead-set on a stance you know is factually incorrect? Southerton says that while, once again, there’s no method with strong evidence proving it to be the best, connecting with the person “on an emotional level” often helps change their beliefs. “If you can think about where they might be coming from, and connect with them on that level, that’s going to be the most successful. Because we know that people share misinformation because the position that the misinformation has taken makes them feel good,” says Southerton. Southerton warns against “debunking” by simply telling someone that they’re wrong. “Correcting someone, or fact checking, feels good to us, but often shames the person who’s shared the misinformation and can radicalise them further.” This doesn’t mean you need to legitimise their viewpoint. “Try and think about ways that you can humanise your position to them,” says Southerton. “Ultimately, this is a very emotional time for Aboriginal people in Australia, to have these kinds of debates happening about them in a way that can open up conversation for extreme racism to happen in the public sphere. “So it’s really important that we don’t legitimise that racism. But at the same time, […] what is actually successful, as a way to combat misinformation, is about connecting with people who are sharing it, and seeing what ways we can best reach them.” For people who deal with a lot of misinformation professionally, van Antwerpen says it’s important to choose which myths to debunk – you won’t be able to fight every single false statement. Once chosen, she recommends <a href="https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/debunking-handbook-2020/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Debunking Handbook</a> by Stephan Lewandowsky for evidence-based advice on challenging myths. In general, “you want to start with the facts in a very clear way, so you want it to be as concise as possible,” she says. “We used to say ‘never repeat the misinformation’, but that’s changed a bit now. Generally, it’s best to warn that you’re going to say misinformation, and then just say it once.” Then, van Antwerpen says it’s very important to explain why the misinformation is wrong. “Our brains like to have some sort of explanation. If we don’t have something to fill the gap that’s left when we correct the misinformation, it will just go back to the misinformation.” Being conscious of political narratives, without feeding them and getting more polarised, is important too. “When we present these really polarised arguments, people often tend to either polarise or they’ll get apathetic and drop out,” says van Antwerpen. “So if you’re looking at informing people, it’s finding how can you communicate it in a way that’s not encouraging that split.” Image credits: Getty Images <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/behaviour/misinformation-voice-referendum/">This article</a> was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/ellen-phiddian/">Ellen Phiddian</a>. </div>

Legal

Police reveal details of the online profile of Australia's worst ever paedophile

The former Queensland childcare worker who has been charged with sexually abusing dozens of children boasted in an online profile about his love of “meaningful experiences” with kids. The 45-year-old Gold Coast man was <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/unfathomable-former-childcare-worker-facing-1-623-child-abuse-charges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">charged</a> last week with 1623 child abuse offences, including 136 charges of raping pre-pubescent girls, with the alleged offences relate to 87 children in Australia and four overseas, and includes 110 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10. While the man cannot be named until his case is committed to trial, many parents of the victims have discovered an online profile for his previous employer in which the man boasted about his childcare experience. In it, the man talked about his professional skills and discussed how he helped children “develop their identities”, saying he was a “firm believer in play-based learning as well as inquiry”. “I love engaging children in meaningful experiences that inspire their play and learning,” the post read. “I am particularly fascinated by how children use creative languages such as drawing, building, painting and music to express themselves and develop their identity.” He said “young children are natural inquirers” who “explore the world through their senses, seeking answers and building theories”, adding that “as an early childhood teacher I hope to share this journey, learning side by side with children and inspiring them”. Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Justine Gough said the investigation into the man’s crimes and a larger paedophile ring is still ongoing. “Those charges carry life imprisonment. Once this man faces the AFP charges here in Queensland, we will be seeking his extradition,” she said. “This is one of the most horrific child abuse cases that I‘ve seen in nearly 40 years of policing.” “We are absolutely committed to prosecuting anyone who comes after our most vulnerable.” If the man is convicted of all his alleged crimes, he will be named the worst paedophile in Australian history. Image credits: ABC

Legal

10 helpful etiquette rules for posting a loved one’s death on social media

There’s no right way to deal with death on social media The first thing to bear in mind when sharing or hearing of a loss on social media is that everyone is different. “When it comes to grief, there’s no one way to deal with it, and no correct prescription, so each person’s way needs to be respected,” says Dr Fran Walfish, a family and relationship psychotherapist. “When people are experiencing a loss, it’s very important to step aside, not tell them what to do, and take your cues from them.” Let the closest loved ones post first While anyone affected by a death can feel a strong impulse to share the news on social media, such announcements should be left to the deceased person’s closest family members, who should have the prerogative to decide when, what, and how they want to post. “Sharing is really for the closest loved ones’ benefit, so leave it up to that core group to post the initial news of the passing,” says Stef Woods, who teaches classes on social media. “Note what information has been included or excluded from that post, then follow suit and show support.” A recent study found that the content of those posts can vary depending on the social media platform used. In a 2016 paper, two University of Washington students who had analysed the feeds of deceased Twitter users found, “People use the site to acknowledge death in a blend of public and private behaviour that differs from how it is addressed on other social media sites,” according to a press release. Streamline logistics Because social media has the power to reach such a large network simultaneously, it can be a helpful tool for a family dealing with preparations for a service or memorial. “When the loss is fresh and there are lots of plans to coordinate, it can save people time and emotional energy rather than re-sharing the same information in call after call,” says Woods. If you’re on the phone with someone, she explains, you could get stuck in a conversation that’s not just about you relaying information, it’s also about the other person processing it, and you may not have the time or mental patience for such an exchange. “It can be easier to post the information on Facebook, and then go focus on logistics. It can help give the closest loved ones their own time,” she adds. Get your facts straight While it seems like it should go without saying, when posting about a death on social media, it’s especially crucial to make sure your information is accurate. “I have a niece who was in the ICU for many months with pneumonia teetering between life and death, and all of a sudden on Facebook, I saw a close friend of my brother express condolences, but my niece was still alive!” says Walfish. She rushed to do damage control by contacting the friend – who was a kind, well-meaning person – to prevent her brother from ever seeing such an upsetting post. Fortunately her niece ultimately recovered. “We were lucky in my case, but you can’t always erase what goes out there.” Be careful with details People hearing of a death on social media may want to get more information, understandably, but your curiosity is less important than the family’s need for privacy. “If the core group doesn’t indicate the details of how someone passed in the post, there’s some reason they included or excluded that information,” says Woods. If you happen to know details that weren’t publicly shared by the relatives, it isn’t your place to put that information out there. “Let the core group take the lead,” adds Woods, who points out that ultimately, “finding out the Why and How doesn’t change the fact that someone is gone.” In addition, whether you’re the closest family or the most distant friend of the deceased, be aware that whatever information you post could be viewed by children. “So, if God forbid there was a suicide or any kind of questionable circumstances to the death, be very cautious about how and what you say if you don’t want a teenager or younger child to see it,” says Walfish. Respond in the medium in which you received the news Remember that in the first hours and days after someone passes, the loved ones of the deceased are dealing not only with a storm of emotion but also a long list of logistics. While social media can help that core group to share information more easily, such a public announcement can leave them open to getting bombarded with hundreds of calls and texts. “If you’ve been notified on social media rather than receiving a call, that means for whatever reason that the closest family members didn’t want to or didn’t have time to talk to everyone,” says Woods. “So when acknowledging the news, stick to the medium through which you received the information.” If someone posts on Facebook, she says, reply briefly online, but don’t rush to call or text; instead, give the family space to deal with what they need to deal with. “Wait and reach out later,” Woods advises. “The loss will still be felt long after the services have passed.” An exception may be if you can offer to help in any way – by taking care of children, for example, or hosting out-of-town relatives who may come in for the funeral. Decide whether to keep the departed’s online profiles There’s a good chance that the person who passed has an online profile, and it’s up to their loved ones to decide what to do with it. “Sometimes a person’s profile page is deleted, sometimes the page is kept up, sometimes a separate memorial site is created,” says Woods. “It’s all up to what’s best for those who are grieving the most – there’s no right or wrong way to handle it.” If a deceased person’s Facebook page, for example, continues to be active with respectful photos and posts, it can become a space where everyone can process the loss and remember together. “It can be healthy to express that those who are gone are not forgotten,” says Woods. For some, however, maintaining a lost loved one’s online presence can be detrimental. “When someone keeps a deceased person’s page alive, in a way it’s parallel to memorialising the deceased by making a shrine in your home,” says Walfish. “It can stop some people from moving forward in their life; it’s like not allowing the final resolution of acceptance.” Make your own wishes known When it comes to looking ahead to your own passing, if you have specific wishes about your own social media presence, share them with your loved ones, says financial planner, Pamela Sandy. “Because we live so much of our lives on various social media platforms, we need to think about whether we want all that out there after we’re gone,” she says. Speaking from personal experience, Sandy adds that when her significant other passed, she wasn’t sure of his wishes for his Facebook page and didn’t know where his username and password was. After a time, she found his login credentials and deleted his page, which is what she believes he would have wanted. In order to help her clients avoid similar situations, Sandy includes an online platform that stores people’s changing usernames and passwords to be accessed by their loved ones after their passing – among the services she offers. Additionally, in 2015 Facebook introduced a feature that lets people choose a legacy contact – a family member or friend who can manage their account when they pass away, according to a company press release. Avoid platitudes When you’re trying to show support for someone who has experienced a loss, avoid comments containing trite platitudes such as “They’re in a better place,” especially if you don’t know the family’s beliefs. “For example, saying the person lived a long life may not sit well because the family may not feel it was long enough,” says Woods, adding that it’s fine to be honest and say you don’t know what to say. “It’s OK to write ‘I’m so sorry; there are no words,’” says Woods. “It’s OK to be honest and sincere.” Check your privacy settings When posting, sharing, or commenting on any sensitive information – such as a death – make sure you understand who will be able to see it. “People have different social media privacy settings, so they may think no one can see a particular post when they can,” says Woods. “If you’re sharing a post, say, on Instagram and connecting it with Facebook, it automatically defers to your Instagram setting. Or your phone may have a different default setting than your laptop.” Don’t give into a grief Olympics Sometimes a close family member’s post about the loss of a loved one can attract not only sincere condolences, but also comments in which more distant family or friends get carried away with their own feelings. “It can become a ‘grief Olympics,’ and it should be avoided,” says Woods. Once news of someone’s passing has been announced by their core group, she says, avoid comments about yourself such as bemoaning how hard the news is for you. “If you feel the need to process your own grief, record that processing on your own page,” she suggests. “And do so without tagging any of the core loved ones or the person who passed. If they want to know your views, they’ll see it.” Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/etiquette-rules-for-dealing-with-death-on-social-media?pages=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.

Caring

Gen X dad’s odd punishment for four-year-old son sparks debate

A self-proclaimed Gen X dad has sparked a furious debate after a video clip of him punishing his four-year-old son went viral on TikTok. Wisconsin-based dad Derek Longstreth said he had no other choice but to make his young son, Truman, heave massive jugs of water across the yard because he hit his mum. “All right little man, let's go, you've got all these jugs to carry,” he told his son, as he showed five water jugs. “He hit his mom today, so, spanking is out of the question because you liberals made it so we can’t spank our children any more,” he explained. The father-of-one recorded his son struggling to carry the water jugs, but offered him words of encouragement as the boy tried to carry it across the yard. “Let's go, young man. I love you just so you know, but you're not going to hit your mom,” he said. “You can do it. I love you son but we don't hit women in this family.” Longstreth then explained why he chose to punish his son this way, and said that spanking your child is not allowed in Wisconsin. “He's four. We're not allowed to spank in the state of Wisconsin because some liberals are saying there are better ways.” “'Well liberals, what's the better way?” <div><iframe title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7256440921728863530&display_name=tiktok&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40hamburgerjones23%2Fvideo%2F7256440921728863530&image=https%3A%2F%2Fp19-sign.tiktokcdn-us.com%2Fobj%2Ftos-useast5-p-0068-tx%2Fc29492b9251f41139161e469b64b4d0e%3Fx-expires%3D1689789600%26x-signature%3DRnuVqM3A6bo1miOskT3JdYiBlWA%253D&key=5b465a7e134d4f09b4e6901220de11f0&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div> After the father complained about the liberals, he continued to try and teach Truman a lesson, despite the child complaining that he “can’t do it” multiple times throughout the video. At the end of the clip, Longstreth asks his son: “Are you going to hit your mom again?” “No,” the four-year-old responded. Longstreth also made his son apologise for hitting his mum. The nine-minute clip has racked up over 1.9 million views, while many applauded the father for his “gentle” ways of parenting and disciplining his son, others slammed him for “abuse”. “Big respect to this dad. He gave the kid a hard job with encouragement and reassurance that he loves him as well as why the kid had to do it,” wrote one person. “This is honestly probably the best and most effective way to discipline your child. Every moment they do this they are thinking about what they did,” commented another. “Good dad, raising his son right, teaching him to never lay his hands on any women especially his momma. Very good,” agreed a third. “This is like so gentle yet so disciplining in all the good ways,” wrote a fourth. However, other viewers disagreed with the father’s method. “This is abuse.... I said what I said. I'm sorry he hit his mom though, talking it out is fine. He's too little for this,” commented one person. “Lol. When people ask what the next traumas will be, it’ll be every moment being a phone in their face. Did you need to post this? Pathetic,” wrote another. “You don't want him to associate work as punishment. how about no tv, no sweets, something that is usually a privilege. work is something that is good,” added another user. Images: TikTok

Family & Pets

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

Kyle Sandilands has been censored during an on-air rant about Indigenous Australians. The radio shock jock clashed with The Kyle and Jackie O Show newsreader Brooklyn Ross as the pair discussed the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which would comprise of a body of First Nations Australians and Torres Strait Islanders who can advise the government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of their people. As the pair argued, lengthy portions of Kyle's opinionated rant were censored. However, some of his comments made it to air. “We have to actually give [Indigenous Australians] money and look after them,” said Ross to which Sandilands replied: “Nah, bulls**t!” “How about educating people and giving people the chance to build their own life like the rest of us did?” he suggested. Sandilands has made it clear that he is staunchly opposed to the Voice, as he doesn’t believe a reported $34 billion in funds should be allocated to Indigenous Australians as he thinks the money wasn’t having a positive affect on First Nations communities. “No one’s really putting all that $34 billion into fixing the real problem. They’re painting houses and giving them this and that,” Sandilands added, before mocking: “’We’ll rename Fraser Island!’” During his rant, he went on to criticise Welcome to Country traditions that have been adopted into everyday life, which involves a speech typically given at significant events by an elder or custodian to welcome visitors to their traditional country. “Look, The Project’s thanking people from the past [for] using their land. These things, they’re s**t!” he said. “No one’s better than anyone else. If they’re treated worse, that’s an issue." After staying silent for most of his tirade, Jackie O chimed in to say she agreed with that part of his outburst. “Thank you, Jackie. Jackie’s finally popped up," he sarcastically called listeners, before telling her: “I understand you don’t want to get involved in it.” Rightfully so, said Ross who made Henderson laugh when he said, “[An] angry man and a gay man arguing. And both of us white!” Image credits: KIISFM

News

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wally-smith-1450210">Wally Smith</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-wadley-203663">Greg Wadley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Most of us <a href="https://wearesocial.com/au/blog/2022/02/digital-2022-australia-online-like-never-before/">go online</a> multiple times a day. About half of 18–29 year olds surveyed in a 2021 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/26/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-say-they-are-almost-constantly-online/">Pew Research Study</a> said they are “almost constantly” connected. How are we to make sense of this significant digital dimension of modern life? Many questions have rightly been asked about its broader consequences for society and the economy. But there remains a simpler question about what motivates people across a range of ages, occupations and cultures to be so absorbed in digital connection. And we can turn this question on ourselves: why am I online? <h2>What are we doing when we go online?</h2> As the American sociologist Erving Goffman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/16/archives/frame-analysis.html">pointed out</a>, asking “What is it that’s going on here?” about human behaviour can yield answers framed at different levels. These range from our superficial motives to a deeper understanding of what we are “really” doing. Sometimes we might be content to explain our online behaviour in purely practical terms, like checking traffic routes or paying a bill. Other times we might struggle to articulate our reasons for going or remaining online. Why are we continually looking at our phones or computers, when we could be getting on with physical tasks, or exercising, or meditating, or engaging more fully with the people who are physically around us? <h2>The ever-present need to manage our emotions</h2> As researchers of human-computer interaction, we are exploring answers in terms of the ever-present need to manage our emotions. Psychologists refer to this activity as <a href="https://www.guilford.com/books/Handbook-of-Emotion-Regulation/James-Gross/9781462520732">emotion regulation</a>. Theories of the nature and function of emotions are complex and contested. However, it is safe to say they are expressions of felt needs and motivations that arise in us through some fusion of physiology and culture. During a typical day, we often feel a need to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271">alter our emotional state</a>. We may wish to feel more serious about a competitive task or more sad at a funeral. Perhaps we would like to be less sad about events of the past, less angry when meeting an errant family member, or more angry about something we know in our heart is wrong. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PQkNb4CLjJ8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Digital emotion regulation is becoming increasingly common in our everyday lives.</figcaption></figure> One way to understand our frequent immersions into online experience is to see them as acts within a broader scheme of managing such daily emotional demands. Indeed, in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581922001732">earlier research</a> we found up to half of all smartphone use may be for the purpose of emotional regulation. <h2>Digital technologies are becoming key tools of emotion regulation</h2> Over the pandemic lockdowns of 2020–21 in Melbourne, Australia, we investigated how digital technologies are becoming <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3517573">key tools of emotion regulation</a>. We were surprised to find that people readily talked of their technology use in these emotion-managing terms. Occasionally, this involved specially designed apps, for mindfulness and so on. But more often people relied on mundane tools, such as using social media alongside Zoom to combat feelings of boredom or isolation, browsing for “retail therapy”, playing phone games to de-stress, and searching online to alleviate anxiety about world events. To some extent, these uses of digital technology can be seen as re-packaging <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026999399379285">traditional methods</a> of emotion management, such as listening to music, strengthening social connections, or enjoying the company of adorable animals. Indeed, people in our study used digital technologies to enact familiar strategies, such as immersion in selected situations, seeking distractions, and reappraising what a situation means. However, we also found indications that digital tools are changing the intensity and nature of how we regulate emotions. They provide emotional resources that are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing">nearly always available</a>, and virtual situations can be accessed, juxtaposed and navigated more deftly than their physical counterparts. Some participants in our study described how they built what we called “emotional toolkits”. These are collections of digital resources ready to be deployed when needed, each for a particular emotional effect. <h2>A new kind of digital emotional intelligence</h2> None of this is to say emotion regulation is automatically and always a good thing. It can be a means of avoiding important and meaningful endeavours and it can itself become dysfunctional. In our study of a small sample of Melburnians, we found that although digital applications appeared to be generally effective in this role, they are volatile and can lead to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/27/social-dilemma-media-facebook-twitter-society">unpredictable emotional outcomes</a>. A search for energising music or reassuring social contact, for example, can produce random or unwanted results. A new kind of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10187756/">digital emotional intelligence</a> might be needed to effectively navigate digital emotional landscapes. <h2>An historic shift in everyday life</h2> Returning to the question: what am I doing online? Emotion regulation may well be the part of the answer. You may be online for valid instrumental reasons. But equally, you are likely to be enacting your own strategies of <a href="https://cis.unimelb.edu.au/hci/projects/digitalemotionregulation">emotion regulation through digital means</a>. It is part of an historic shift playing out in how people negotiate the demands of everyday life. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208483/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wally-smith-1450210">Wally Smith</a>, Professor, School of Computing and Information Systems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-wadley-203663">Greg Wadley</a>, Senior Lecturer, Computing and Information Systems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-am-i-online-research-shows-its-often-about-managing-emotions-208483">original article</a>.

Technology

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

"Too good to be true": Bank teller saves couple from losing $40k

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

“Imagine being offended by gingerbread": Woolies shopper slammed online

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Hilarious reason dad couldn't be fooled by online scam

The ‘yes’ Voice campaign is far outspending ‘no’ in online advertising, but is the message getting through?

“I run on bananas and coke cola": Kyrgios wades into doping debate

Misinformation and the Voice: how can you spot and defuse false claims?

Police reveal details of the online profile of Australia's worst ever paedophile

10 helpful etiquette rules for posting a loved one’s death on social media

Gen X dad’s odd punishment for four-year-old son sparks debate

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

"Too good to be true": Bank teller saves couple from losing $40k

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

“Imagine being offended by gingerbread": Woolies shopper slammed online

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Hilarious reason dad couldn't be fooled by online scam

The ‘yes’ Voice campaign is far outspending ‘no’ in online advertising, but is the message getting through?

“I run on bananas and coke cola": Kyrgios wades into doping debate

Misinformation and the Voice: how can you spot and defuse false claims?

Police reveal details of the online profile of Australia's worst ever paedophile

10 helpful etiquette rules for posting a loved one’s death on social media

Gen X dad’s odd punishment for four-year-old son sparks debate

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

Our Partners

Join Over60